Re: Historical Accuracy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/18/04 12:25 AM The Nader campaign was not the first such opportunity in the 20th century. Farmer-Labor Party and Robert La Follette's third party bid in 1924. Louis Proyect farmer-labor's origins were in farm protests of non-partisan league (first such org was in north dakota), farmer-labor parties existed in number of mid-west farm states, most prominent was in minnesota where party was created from non-partisan league, socialist party, and state labor federation... 1924 was not really good year for f-l party because of split that occurred when la follette refused to consider running on f-l line, many in party went with la follette but splinter faction ran f-l candidate who received very few votes... farmer-labor parties (plural because they were state-based) were pretty dormant after 24 (la follette said he was going to form a permanent progressive party but he died shortly thereafter) until depression... minnesotans elected f-l governor in 30, 32, 34, 36 (think his name was cox, he died during 4th term), f-l controlled state's congressional delegation for a time, held both us senate seats... party was eventually wracked by internal dissension - between farmers and laborers, between more and less leftist labor (trots role in 34 minneapolis strike seems most important activity in their history) - and by purging of left led by humphrey and protege mondale after ww2... point of above is that important farmer-labor history is at state level, not prez elections... michael hoover
Dollars Per Vote: Green vs. Democratic (Historical accuracy)
At 10:46 PM -0500 3/17/04, Julio Huato wrote: Today in the U.S., continual agitation of the sort described by Marx can and must be conducted (not only but also) within the DP. Not cost-effective. It costs a left-wing candidate more to run in the Democratic presidential caucuses and primaries than to run as a Green candidate in the general election. Howard Dean spent over $40 million, did not win a single primary, and got forced out on February 18, 2004 -- five months before the Democratic Party National Convention on July 26-29 and more than ten months before the election day in November. The losers who gave money to Dean spent $40 million -- and the losers who gave to Dennis Kuninich spent $5 million -- without earning a single vote for their candidate in the general election. In contrast, our man Ralph Nader spent only $8.5 million on his national presidential campaign in 2000 (Yvonne Abraham, Clean Elections Offers a Big Lift to Green Party, _The Boston Globe_, March 3, 2002, http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0303-02.htm) and got 2,882,955 votes in the general election (U.S. Presidential Elections: Leftist Votes, http://www.marxists.org/history/usa/government/elections/president/timeline.htm) -- about $2.9 per vote in the general election, which is far less than $100 per vote for Dean, $80 per vote for Kucinich, and $7 per vote for Al Sharpton in the Democratic caucuses and primaries (Cf. In 1996, Nader opted to cap his campaign expenditures at $5,000 and ended up with 581,000 votes. Nader's DPV: $0.01, says Norman Solomon in News That Still Goes Unreported: 'Dollars Per Vote' at http://www.fair.org/media-beat/980604.html -- our Consumer Advocate sure knows how to get his money's worth). * The New York Times February 29, 2004, Sunday, Late Edition - Final SECTION: Section 1; Page 18; Column 1; National Desk LENGTH: 1017 words HEADLINE: THE 2004 CAMPAIGN; Political Points BYLINE: By JOHN TIERNEY; Rhasheema A. Sweeting contributed reporting for this column. . . . Add Up the Dollars, Er, Votes THAT old promise of a chicken in every pot looks like a bargain compared with the sums politicians are spending this year to win votes. Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri spent $18 million in his presidential campaign, which ended after he won fewer than 14,000 votes in Iowa. That works out to about $1,300 per vote, which would be enough to buy every voter a chicken, a pot and a full-featured stove. To be fair, you could include the votes that Mr. Gephardt has been picking up in primaries since he left the race. Counting them, his per-vote cost stands at about $600. So he can point to at least one bigger spender in the past: Steve Forbes, whose quest for the Republican nomination in 2000 cost $86 million, or about $650 per vote. But Mr. Gephardt is still comfortably ahead of another plutocrat: Michael R. Bloomberg paid about $100 per vote while spending more than $73 million to win the race for New York mayor. Among this year's Democrats, the next highest roller was Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, who spent $17 million, or a little more than $200 for every vote he won in the primaries until he withdrew. Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont, spent the most, $42 million, but took back enough of America to average about $100 per vote until his withdrawal. Gen. Wesley K. Clark spent $22 million, or just less than $60 per vote. Among the active candidates, Representative Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio has spent $5 million, or about $80 per vote so far. Mr. Edwards's $22 million in spending works out to nearly $24 per vote, and Mr. Kerry's $31 million to $21 per vote. But the most cost-effective of all is the Rev. Al Sharpton. By spending a little more than $600,000, he's paying less than $7 per vote, which is just about the price of a chicken. * $18 million (Gephardt) + $17 million (Lieberman) + $42 million (Dean) + $5 million (Kucinich) + $22 million (Edwards) + $600,000 (Sharpton) = $104,600,000 = wasted dollars of the Democratic losers and their contributors who do not get a single vote in the general election. -- Yoshie * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: Dollars Per Vote: Green vs. Democratic (Historical accuracy)
(Cf. In 1996, Nader opted to cap his campaign expenditures at $5,000 and ended up with 581,000 votes. Nader's DPV: $0.01, says Norman Solomon in News That Still Goes Unreported: 'Dollars Per Vote' at http://www.fair.org/media-beat/980604.html -- our Consumer Advocate sure knows how to get his money's worth). * Ooops Department: Last month, in a column about Dollars Per Vote (the amount of money a candidate spends for each vote received), I wrote that in the 1996 general election, the man who finished fourth in the presidential balloting, Ralph Nader, opted to cap his campaign expenditures at $5,000 and ended up with 581,000 votes. But I made the mistake of citing only a preliminary tally of ballots cast for him. The official, final results show that Nader actually received 685,128 votes nationwide. So, Nader spent about seven-tenths of a penny per vote. Compare that to the DPV totals of the men who ran ahead of him in the '96 presidential race: Bill Clinton, $1.36; Bob Dole, $1.63; Ross Perot, $3.67. (Norman Solomon, Bumpy Media Road For A Wellstone Presidential Drive, http://www.fair.org/media-beat/980716.html) * -- Yoshie * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: Historical Accuracy
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/
Re: Historical Accuracy
Joel Wendland wrote: 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 social democratic parties you are referring to were part of the Second International which Engels led until his death. They also opposed imperialism, perhaps not as effectively as possible. After their parliamentarians voted for WWI, many rank-and-file Communists felt that unity with them was impossible. Lenin urged them to see beyond this. He was correct. If you look at the evidence of the German revolution of the 1920s, you will discover that the SP was as much on the front lines as the CP. The Democratic Party never took part in working class revolutions, except to drown them in blood. quoting myself: Germany had definitely entered a pre-Revolutionary situation. French occupation of the Ruhr, unemployment, declining wages, hyperinflation and fascist provocations all added up to an explosive situation. The crisis was deepest in the heavily industrialized state of Saxony where a left-wing Socialist named Erich Zeigner headed the government. He was friendly with the Communists and made common cause with them. He called for expropriation of the capitalist class, arming of the workers and a proletarian dictatorship. This man, like thousands of others in the German workers movement, had a revolutionary socialist outlook but was condemned as a Menshevik in the Communist press. The united front overtures to Zeigner mostly consisted of escalating pressure to force him to accommodate to the maximum Communist program. full: http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/organization/comintern_and_germany.htm Eventually, the CP was persuaded to join with Zeigner's party in a classic united front. When the Democratic Party churns up people like Erich Zeigner, I'll take a second look. Louis Proyect Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Historical accuracy
ertugrul ahmet tonak wrote: as usual, this commentary of Mage makes so much sense to me. I guess it's especially appealing if you like clever sobriquets like Ubu, Bushits, and Dumbocrats. It's very nice that Ralph would like to repeal Taft-Hartley. Leaving aside his history of hostility to unions - the 1970s stuff that helped fuel deregulation was critical of unions as monopolists, and in the 1980s he resisted attempts to unionize his own shop, while red-baiting the organizers - there's a little matter of Congress to deal with. If, by some weird fluke, Nader were elected president, he would have no party, no movement, and no supporters in the legislative branch that would promote this admirable goal. It's not enough to promise to do nice things - you need numbers and organization to back them up. And Ralph doesn't have them, and has repeatedly refused to build them in years not divisble by four. Doug
Re: Historical Accuracy
Shane Mage wrote: Marvin Gandall writes: ...bourgeois-dominated but worker-based parties like the Democratic party in the US... If Marvin thinks the Dumbocrats are worker-based they're most welcome to his support. I'm not speaking here of the mass of the working population, a large percentage of which - especially the very poor - is politically apathetic. But there is no doubt the organized American working class has a long historical relationship to the Democratic party. This is not only true of the top leadership of the AFL-CIO, which is again funding and organizing for the Democrats, but of the local trade union activists, as well, and more broadly of union households. There has been abundant coverage of Steelworkers and other industrial workers; SEIU-affiliated cleaners, health care personnel,and other service workers; teachers, ACFSME-affiliated government workers, and other public sector employees, voting in primaries and working on behalf of Democratic party candidates. There is no such corresponding official or grassoots union support for the Republicans. This is what centrally differentiates the two parties. It means, for example, that in the event of social spending cuts by the next administration, it will be easier for the left to help mount a fightback campaign with Democratic trade union and social movement activists whose expectations have been excited and who have easier access to a Kerry administration, than if these vital constituencies are demoralized by a Bush re-election victory and cut off from an administration which responds to a different political and social base. This is no small consideration. An additional point of demarcation, often overlooked in simplistic reflex characterization of the two parties as Tweedledum and Tweedledee, is that the Republicans are the party of choice of the big bourgeoisie while the Democrats are its preferred alternative. In both these senses - bourgeois-dominated but worker-based - the DP has the same political physiognomy as the social democratic parties elsewhere around the world. The old verities of class parties with which we were able to distinguish the social democratic parties from the Democrats in the US no longer apply. They have the same relationship to their labour movements as the Democrats have to the American one, and they long ago abandoned public ownership as their objective. They, like the Democrats, openly seek the reform of capitalism. As do the Greens. The differences on this issue - despite the vehement efforts by some Green supporters on the list to portray themselves as revolutionaries fighting a battle against class traitors - is over which pro-capitalist party to support, ie. the Greens and the Democrats. The Green supporters think their party is a more progressive one, and I agree - up to a point, that point being if and when it should approach power, when it will be forced to succumb to systemic pressures to adjust its program to the one more or less being presently advanced by the Democrats. How do you think Joshka Fischer, the Green leader, ever became the German foreign minister? Given that the choice is between which reformist party to support, I believe it is better for the left to stay as close to the organized working class as possible, at every stage of its political evolution, in order to be in a position to influence its direction if events should ever compel it to break with the Democratic party. I would think Leninists especially would see this as consistent with the advice Lenin gave in LWC, adapted to present conditions. My hesitation about the Green party is not so much that it is so peripheral to the political process - the usual objection - but that its class character is predominantly petty-bourgeois rather than working class. If this should ever change, so would my interest in the party. Finally, I don't think the use of an expression like Dumbocrats befits a politically serious person. Nor is it accurate; the Democratic leadership may be many things, but, alas, it is not dumb. Marv Gandall
Re: Dollars Per Vote: Green vs. Democratic (Historical accuracy)
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: It costs a left-wing candidate more to run in the Democratic presidential caucuses and primaries than to run as a Green candidate in the general election. Howard Dean spent over $40 million, did not win a single primary, and got forced out on February 18, 2004 [etc.] I like Yoshie's reply. It meets high standards of concretion. But if we're going to do cost-benefit analysis in presidential elections, then we should include the expected *benefits* as well. And we need to discount future benefits by the time preference regular people -- e.g., workers -- have. That is, short-run benefits outweigh long-run benefits. Past a decade horizon, large benefits mean next to nothing. And that's assuming the benefits are certain. If they are only likely, the long-run benefits will be more uncertain so, if people are not risk-loving (and risk lovers tend to die sooner), long-run benefits will weigh little on the expectation. People expect some short-run benefits from policy changes when they vote for the DP whereas those expected by voting Green are, er, next to zero. By a big factor, a Dem vote means significantly higher expected benefits than a Green vote. Expected benefits of policy changes are harder to add up than campaign spending receipts, but some things are clear. Just limiting Bush's tax giveaways for the rich could make some difference in the lives of workers in the near future. Also in the near future, slightly deflecting the course of U.S. foreign policy would pay off handsomely in U.S. and foreign lives, not to mention the pecuniary gains. Etc. On the other hand, Helping Nader build the Green party (so that, God helping, by the middle of the century it is in a position to challenge the two-party system) doesn't seem to make sense to large masses of people. I understand the volatility of political life can make a big difference down the road, but with volatility things can go either way. IMO, radical changes that may come as a result of chance not preceded by a large effort of grassroots organizing are very unlikely to be good. And history seems clear in showing that much. Shane Mage suggests an interesting argument to justify supporting Nader now, namely, that it'd allow for the left to better negotiate with the DP as the elections near. I can't reply to Shane in categorical terms, but my impression is that the asymmetry between the left and the DP is much bigger than we need to assume in pulling off the stunt. It's not only that the corporate interests that rely on the DP don't trust the left. It's that the bulk of U.S. workers and middle classers don't take it seriously either. That means that the left must start from a lower point and build up on the basis of a lot of grassroots organizing and humiliating tactical compromises. It is these conditions -- and not the spinelessness of leftists -- that impose compromises in the left's electoral politics. But they don't necessarily tie the hands of Marxists and socialists willing to agitate and propagandize their radical ideas, and organize at the grassroots. What it does is discipline their tactical moves. And good tactical moves is what it takes for them to advance and materialize their radical ideas. So, we don't need dollars spent per vote. We need dollars spent per unit of short-run political benefit. I bet that'd flip Yoshie's figures altogether. Julio _ MSN Amor: busca tu ½ naranja http://latino.msn.com/autos/
Historical accuracy
Louis Proyect wrote: I have a feeling that the same people who are urging a vote for Kerry today will be urging the same policies in the future when workers are occupying factories and calling for a general strike. You don't switch brands from Menshevism to Bolshevism when the time is ripe. Menshevism is a chronic condition like eczema. --- The eczema remark is unnecessary. It's also wrong. The Bolsheviks wouldn't have acquired their majority in the Soviets and seized state power without the wholesale defection to their side of the mass of Menshevik workers and some important intellectuals. This wasn't unique to Russia; it is characteristic of every revolutionary process, and if the revolutionary party you are contemplating should ever come to pass in the US in our lifetime, it would almost certainly be composed in the main of those trade union and social movement activists whose current allegiance is to the Democratic party and who are urging a vote for Kerry. It would also likely include many of their secondary and perhaps even some of their nationally-known leaders. This isn't to suggest such a party wouldn't also incorporate many of the people who now support the Greens and the various Marxist groups, but given the present political landscape, this is not where most would come from. None of us, incidentally, can possibly know in advance how individuals will react to a social crisis. Historically, we know there have been many honest liberals and social democratic activists who have moved left, and Marxist intellectuals who despite their professed commitment to revolutionary politics have turned tail, under the pressure of events.
Re: Historical accuracy
Marvin Gandall: The eczema remark is unnecessary. It's also wrong. The Bolsheviks wouldn't have acquired their majority in the Soviets and seized state power without the wholesale defection to their side of the mass of Menshevik workers and some important intellectuals. This wasn't unique to Russia; it is characteristic of every revolutionary process, and if the revolutionary party you are contemplating should ever come to pass in the US in our lifetime, it would almost certainly be composed in the main of those trade union and social movement activists whose current allegiance is to the Democratic party and who are urging a vote for Kerry. It would also likely include many of their secondary and perhaps even some of their nationally-known leaders. I hope you are right. I am somewhat pessimistic about the flexibility of ABB ideologists of the Marxist persuasion who tend to be long-time veterans like Ray Markey or Manning Marable going in the reverse direction. If anything I should have given more credit to the Russian Mensheviks, who as you rightly point out were won to the revolution. None of us, incidentally, can possibly know in advance how individuals will react to a social crisis. Historically, we know there have been many honest liberals and social democratic activists who have moved left, and Marxist intellectuals who despite their professed commitment to revolutionary politics have turned tail, under the pressure of events. Right. Ralph Nader has moved to the left under the pressure of events, while many like Norman Solomon, Micah Sifry and Doug Ireland who backed Nader in the last election are virtually unanimous in backing the centrist, pro-war John Kerry today. That being said, I am far more interested in defining the class criterion that would make support for bourgeois parties impermissible as was the case prior to rise of the Stalinist Popular Front, whose theories are surfacing today with little alteration. In a Nov. 23 1871 letter to NYC socialist Friedrich Bolte, Marx wrote, Where the working class is not yet far enough advanced in its organization to undertake a decisive campaign against the collective power, i.e., the political power, of the ruling classes, it must at any rate be trained for this by continual agitation against this power and by a hostile attitude toward the policies of the ruling classes. Otherwise it remains a plaything in their hands. In a Nov. 9, 1912, article on the U.S. elections Lenin wrote, This so-called bipartisan system prevailing in America and Britain has been one of the most powerful means of preventing the rise of an independent working-class, i.e., genuinely socialist, party. It is interesting how such words have so little importance to some self-professed Marxists today. I much prefer Marx and Lenin to Dmitroff, no matter his personal courage. Louis Proyect Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Historical accuracy
Louis Proyect wrote: In a Nov. 9, 1912, article on the U.S. elections Lenin wrote, This so-called bipartisan system prevailing in America and Britain has been one of the most powerful means of preventing the rise of an independent working-class, i.e., genuinely socialist, party. It is interesting how such words have so little importance to some self-professed Marxists today. I much prefer Marx and Lenin to Dmitroff, no matter his personal courage. Here are some other words: The differences between the Churchills and the Lloyd Georges--with insignificant national distiinctions, these political types exist in all countries--on the one hand, and between the Hendersons and the Lloyd Georges on the other, are quite minor and unimportant from the standpoint of pure (i.e. abstract) communism, i.e., communism that has not yet matured to the stage of practical political action by the masses. However, from the standpoint of this practical action by the masses, these differences are most important. To take due account of these differences, and to determine the moment when the inevitable conflicts between these friends, which weaken and enfeeble all the friends taken together, will have come to a head--that is the concern, the task, of a Communist who wants to be, not merely a class-conscious and convinced propagandist of ideas, but a practical leader of the masses in the revolution. (Lenin, Left-wing Communism an Infantile Disorder, 1920). He goes on in this vein further to argue for compromises, zig-zags, retreats in order to speed up the achievement and then loss of political power by the Hendersons. Clearly his main interest is not in making so-called principled political points about third parties participating in elections fairly, but about how to win real political power. Sounds like Lenin had an ABC (anybody but Churchill) policy in 1920 that roughly parallels current ABB arguments. Now if we compare this to the words you quoted him saying in 1912, can we conclude that like Doug Ireland, et al who refuse to support Nader this time, Lenin abandoned a more advanced position under the political pressure? _ Get rid of annoying pop-up ads with the new MSN Toolbar FREE! http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200414ave/direct/01/
Re: Historical accuracy
Could someone explain what Ralph Nader's candidacy has to do with the development of a socialist party in the U.S.? I could swear he was a petit bourgeois who believed in the beauties of small business and competition. Doug
Re: Historical accuracy
This would probably be the appropriate moment -- in light of your comments and Joel Wendland's -- to ask Louis to elaborate on the following statement: ...I am far more interested in defining the class criterion that would make support for bourgeois parties impermissible... What are the class criterion you have in mind, Louis? Marv G - Original Message - From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 9:14 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Historical accuracy Could someone explain what Ralph Nader's candidacy has to do with the development of a socialist party in the U.S.? I could swear he was a petit bourgeois who believed in the beauties of small business and competition. Doug
Re: Historical accuracy
Louis Proyect cites Marx: Where the working class is not yet far enough advanced in its organization to undertake a decisive campaign against the collective power, i.e., the political power, of the ruling classes, it must at any rate be trained for this by continual agitation against this power and by a hostile attitude toward the policies of the ruling classes. Otherwise it remains a plaything in their hands. Today in the U.S., continual agitation of the sort described by Marx can and must be conducted (not only but also) within the DP. At issue here is whether or not it is in the interest of the working class today, in the U.S. and internationally, to kick Bush out of the White House and whether that priority trumps leftist grandstanding. This requires a tactical decision, a compromise, which doesn't stop anyone from agitating as radically as they may wish against the state, capitalist exploitation, commodity production, etc. In a Nov. 9, 1912, article on the U.S. elections Lenin wrote, This so-called bipartisan system prevailing in America and Britain has been one of the most powerful means of preventing the rise of an independent working-class, i.e., genuinely socialist, party. In this article Lenin is not discussing how to dismantle the bipartisan system. He's just agitating against it, which we should all do in the proper context. Again, this has nothing to do with what to do next -- as you often say. Just because we agitate against the evils of private health-care, commodity fetishism, etc. doesn't mean we're ready to dismantle the markets tomorrow. For a discussion of what to do next in political conditions similar to the U.S. nowadays, we should read Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder. On anti- stagism, an experienced, victorious Lenin cited Engels: What childish innocence it is to present ones own impatience as a theoretically convincing argument! Frederick Engels, Programme of the Blanquist Communards, [30] from the German Social-Democratic newspaper Volksstaat, 1874, No. 73, given in the Russian translation of Articles, 1871-1875, Petrograd, 1919, pp. 52-53). Lenin then went on to write things like: Prior to the downfall of tsarism, the Russian revolutionary Social-Democrats made repeated use of the services of the bourgeois liberals, i.e., they concluded numerous practical compromises with the latter. In 1901-02, even prior to the appearance of Bolshevism, the old editorial board of Iskra (consisting of Plekhanov, Axelrod, Zasulich Martov, Potresov and myself) concluded (not for long, it is true) a formal political alliance with Strove, the political leader of bourgeois liberalism, while at the same time being able to wage an unremitting and most merciless ideological and political struggle against bourgeois liberalism and against the slightest manifestation of its influence in the working-class movement. The Bolsheviks have always adhered to this policy. A formal political alliance with the representatives of the liberal bourgeoisie -- a quid pro quo! At the same time, they fought the bourgeois liberals ideologically and politically, and rejected their influence in the working-class movement. That sounds smart to me. Julio _ MSN Amor: busca tu ½ naranja http://latino.msn.com/autos/
Re: Historical Accuracy
Joel Wendland completely misunderstands what Lou and Lenin were talking about. Lenin *counterposes* the differences between Lloyd George and Churchill (differences within the executive committee of British Imperialism) to the differences between Lloyd George and Henderson--the differences between the leader of the British capitalist class and the leader of the British Labor Party, representing the great majority of the British working class. Lenin is attacking the infantile leftists explicitly because they pay attention only to the size of the differences and ignore the central point, the class antagonism between capital and labor. Their counterparts today are those who ignore the class identity between Dumbocrats and Republicons and seek out differences between Ubu and Kerry in order to avoid anything smacking of independent workingclass politics. Shane Mage Thunderbolt steers all things. Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 64 Louis Proyect wrote: In a Nov. 9, 1912, article on the U.S. elections Lenin wrote, This so-called bipartisan system prevailing in America and Britain has been one of the most powerful means of preventing the rise of an independent working-class, i.e., genuinely socialist, party. It is interesting how such words have so little importance to some self-professed Marxists today. I much prefer Marx and Lenin to Dmitroff, no matter his personal courage. Here are some other words: The differences between the Churchills and the Lloyd Georges--with insignificant national distiinctions, these political types exist in all countries--on the one hand, and between the Hendersons and the Lloyd Georges on the other, are quite minor and unimportant from the standpoint of pure (i.e. abstract) communism, i.e., communism that has not yet matured to the stage of practical political action by the masses. However, from the standpoint of this practical action by the masses, these differences are most important. To take due account of these differences, and to determine the moment when the inevitable conflicts between these friends, which weaken and enfeeble all the friends taken together, will have come to a head--that is the concern, the task, of a Communist who wants to be, not merely a class-conscious and convinced propagandist of ideas, but a practical leader of the masses in the revolution. (Lenin, Left-wing Communism an Infantile Disorder, 1920). He goes on in this vein further to argue for compromises, zig-zags, retreats in order to speed up the achievement and then loss of political power by the Hendersons. Clearly his main interest is not in making so-called principled political points about third parties participating in elections fairly, but about how to win real political power. Sounds like Lenin had an ABC (anybody but Churchill) policy in 1920 that roughly parallels current ABB arguments. Now if we compare this to the words you quoted him saying in 1912, can we conclude that like Doug Ireland, et al who refuse to support Nader this time, Lenin abandoned a more advanced position under the political pressure? Is Doug Ireland (and others) a Marxist-Leninist? Joel Wendland http://www.politicalaffairs.net _ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: Historical accuracy
Doug Henwood asks: Could someone explain what Ralph Nader's candidacy has to do with the development of a socialist party in the U.S.? I could swear he was a petit bourgeois who believed in the beauties of small business and competition. Very simple. The central class issue in US politics for my entire political life has been the repeal of Taft-Hartley. In 1948 Truman, as one of his demagogic counters to the Henry Wallace third party candidacy, promised the repeal of that slave-labor law--and, once elected, dumped that as well as all his other promises. Nader has explicitly and strongly called for the repeal of Taft-Hartley. So much for any impression of him as petit-bourgeois. As for the development of a socialist party in the US--the condition sine qua non for that consumation devoutly to be wished is, and has always been, the breaking away of the US Labor Movement from its slavish subordination to the Dumbocratic faction of the US capitalist class. Any electorally meaningful progressive third-party campaign is a step in that direction. And all the hysteria about Nader--maybe--costing the Dumbocrats enough marginal votes in Florida and Missouri to return Ubu and his Bushits to the White House is proof that Nader's campaign is electorally meaningful. And this is not to express any indifference to the threat of a continuation of Ubuism. On the contrary, the more attractive and powerful is the Nader candidacy the larger the prospective turnout (Spain, last Sunday, proved how much fascistic parties are hurt by a big turnout). And the more possible is the crushing of Ubu by a tactical alliance fin Octobre between Nader and Kerry (Kerry withdraws from the race in Texas, Mississippi, Indiana, Virginia, Louisiana, and South Carolina in return for Nader withdrawing from the race in Florida, Missouri, Ohio, Michigan, Oregon, and West Virginia). You say that Kerry would rather see Ubu elected than make such a deal? My point about class politics, then, would be proven. Shane Mage When we read on a printed page the doctrine of Pythagoras that all things are made of numbers, it seems mystical, mystifying, even downright silly. When we read on a computer screen the doctrine of Pythagoras that all things are made of numbers, it seems self-evidently true. (N. Weiner)
Re: Historical Accuracy
Joel Wendland wrote: Sounds like Lenin had an ABC (anybody but Churchill) policy in 1920 that roughly parallels current ABB arguments. Now if we compare this to the words you quoted him saying in 1912, can we conclude that like Doug Ireland, et al who refuse to support Nader this time, Lenin abandoned a more advanced position under the political pressure? Is Doug Ireland (and others) a Marxist-Leninist? Joel Wendland http://www.politicalaffairs.net 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 Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Historical accuracy
What are the class criterion you have in mind, Louis? Marv G I'd say that until Goldman-Sachs starts giving money to the Green Party, the class criteria are pretty clear. Louis Proyect Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Historical Accuracy
Louis Proyect wrote: In a Nov. 9, 1912, article on the U.S. elections Lenin wrote, This so-called bipartisan system prevailing in America and Britain has been one of the most powerful means of preventing the rise of an independent working-class, i.e., genuinely socialist, party. It is interesting how such words have so little importance to some self-professed Marxists today. I much prefer Marx and Lenin to Dmitroff, no matter his personal courage. Here are some other words: The differences between the Churchills and the Lloyd Georges--with insignificant national distiinctions, these political types exist in all countries--on the one hand, and between the Hendersons and the Lloyd Georges on the other, are quite minor and unimportant from the standpoint of pure (i.e. abstract) communism, i.e., communism that has not yet matured to the stage of practical political action by the masses. However, from the standpoint of this practical action by the masses, these differences are most important. To take due account of these differences, and to determine the moment when the inevitable conflicts between these friends, which weaken and enfeeble all the friends taken together, will have come to a head--that is the concern, the task, of a Communist who wants to be, not merely a class-conscious and convinced propagandist of ideas, but a practical leader of the masses in the revolution. (Lenin, Left-wing Communism an Infantile Disorder, 1920). He goes on in this vein further to argue for compromises, zig-zags, retreats in order to speed up the achievement and then loss of political power by the Hendersons. Clearly his main interest is not in making so-called principled political points about third parties participating in elections fairly, but about how to win real political power. Sounds like Lenin had an ABC (anybody but Churchill) policy in 1920 that roughly parallels current ABB arguments. Now if we compare this to the words you quoted him saying in 1912, can we conclude that like Doug Ireland, et al who refuse to support Nader this time, Lenin abandoned a more advanced position under the political pressure? Is Doug Ireland (and others) a Marxist-Leninist? Joel Wendland http://www.politicalaffairs.net _ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: Historical Accuracy
Shane Mage is right in noting that Lenin was talking of intervention in a class party, ie. the Labour Party, but he is wrong when he says Left-Wing Communism is concerned with the differences between the leader of the British capitalist class and the leader of the British Labor Party and that Lenin is attacking the infantile leftists explicitly because they pay attention only to the size of the differences and ignore the central point, the class antagonism between capital and labor. It makes me think he hasn't read or doesn't recall the content of Lenin's polemic. In fact, it was the so-called infantile leftists who made the class antagonism between capital and labour the central point in arguing for the need of the newly formed Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) to run independently in elections against what they regarded as the class-collaborationist Labour Party led by Henderson. This was the gist of their appeal to Moscow when the Communist International ordered the fledgling CPGB to instead enter the much larger Labour Party, to fold its own banner, and to support the LP electorally as a rope supports a hanged man. What Lenin meant by this latter much-quoted expression is that by encouraging the electoral efforts of the Labour Party, the LP workers -- supported by and patiently counseled by the Communist Party workers campaigning with them in the ridings -- would more quickly come to recognize the deficiencies of their own social-democratic leadership and program. When Lenin came down on the side of the entrists, this was quite a shock to the left-wing communists who wanted to hammer the LP leadership from the outside and ideologically expose them before the working class. The Labour Party, unlike the Liberals and Conservatives, was considered a class party -- that is to say, it was founded and funded by the trade unions, had substantial working class support, and was programatically commited to the public ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, ie. socialism. Therefore it was regarded as an appropriate venue for socialist participation and electoral support. By these criteria, it would be impermissable to participate in or call for a vote for the Democratic party. By the same token, however, it would be equally unprincipled to call for a vote for the Green Party as Louis does, and perhaps Shane as well. The Lenin of Left-Wing Communism would have rightly characterized the Greens as a progressive petit-bourgeois party which has neither has a connection to the labour movement not a program based on public ownership. The fact that the Greens represent a break with the two party system, to which Louis attaches great importance, does not make it a working class party anymore than Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose party of Lenin's time or Ross Perot's Reform party more recently -- each also representing a break with the two party system -- made them proletarian parties. So I would ask Louis on what basis he believes participation in and encouragement for the Green Party is in accordance with what he calls class criteria, while an orientation to another bourgeois party -- in this case, the Democrats, by far the much larger of the two and the one supported by the trade unions and social movements -- is denounced as a betrayal? Things, of course, have been turned on their head since Lenin wrote -- there are no longer any working class parties fitting his description -- and this necessarily affects our relationship to bourgeois-dominated but worker-based parties like the Democratic party in the US and social democratic parties elsewhere. But I'll wait for he and Shane to reply before taking this up. Marv Gandall - Original Message - From: Shane Mage [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 11:07 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Historical Accuracy Joel Wendland completely misunderstands what Lou and Lenin were talking about. Lenin *counterposes* the differences between Lloyd George and Churchill (differences within the executive committee of British Imperialism) to the differences between Lloyd George and Henderson--the differences between the leader of the British capitalist class and the leader of the British Labor Party, representing the great majority of the British working class. Lenin is attacking the infantile leftists explicitly because they pay attention only to the size of the differences and ignore the central point, the class antagonism between capital and labor. Their counterparts today are those who ignore the class identity between Dumbocrats and Republicons and seek out differences between Ubu and Kerry in order to avoid anything smacking of independent workingclass politics. Shane Mage Thunderbolt steers all things. Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 64 Louis Proyect wrote: In a Nov. 9, 1912, article on the U.S. elections Lenin wrote, This so-called bipartisan system prevailing in America and Britain has been one
Re: Historical accuracy
No, I'm afraid this won't do, Louis. There was no distinction made between a party of the big bourgeoise and the petty bourgeoisie. The only permissable electoral activity for a Marxist was in relation to a party based on the unions and committed to public ownership. You're just trying to put a principled gloss on your support for Nader and the Greens. And, incidentally, while I have great respect for Peter Camejo, he is, after all, in the same line of work as Goldman-Sachs, is he not? Marv G - Original Message - From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 11:50 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Historical accuracy What are the class criterion you have in mind, Louis? Marv G I'd say that until Goldman-Sachs starts giving money to the Green Party, the class criteria are pretty clear. Louis Proyect Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Historical Accuracy
So I would ask Louis on what basis he believes participation in and encouragement for the Green Party is in accordance with what he calls class criteria, while an orientation to another bourgeois party -- in this case, the Democrats, by far the much larger of the two and the one supported by the trade unions and social movements -- is denounced as a betrayal? Things, of course, have been turned on their head since Lenin wrote -- there are no longer any working class parties fitting his description -- and this necessarily affects our relationship to bourgeois-dominated but worker-based parties like the Democratic party in the US and social democratic parties elsewhere. But I'll wait for he and Shane to reply before taking this up. Marv Gandall I depart from Trotskyist orthodoxy by supporting initiatives such as the various Progressive Parties, Greens, etc. (although it confuses things--probably purposely--to drag in the Bull Moose Party). My thinking on the question can be found at http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/american_left/Nader2000.htm, from which the following is excerpted: American Marxists have always been ambivalent about electoral formations arising to the left of the Democrats and Republicans. On one hand they would view such third parties as a necessary alternative to the two-party system; on the other, they inevitably regard them as rivals. Even when Lenin urged support for reformist electoral parties, he couched this in terms of the way a rope supports a hanging man. Needless to say, this outlook would almost condemn Marxists to irrelevancy when a genuine electoral initiative like the Nader campaign emerges. Unless revolutionaries are committed in their heart and soul to grass roots movements, electoral or non-electoral, such begrudging tokens of support are bound to lead to missteps. The Nader campaign was not the first such opportunity in the 20th century. In the early years of the Comintern, the Communists faced similar phenomena in the form of the Farmer-Labor Party and Robert La Follette's third party bid in 1924. Since the Comintern influence was almost always negative, it is no surprise that mistakes were repeatedly made under the guidance of the Kremlin leaders. At the Comintern's Fifth Congress in 1924, Zinoviev admitted, We know England so little, almost as little as America. Despite this, advice was given freely to the American party which was in no position to judge it critically. William Z. Foster, one of the American leaders, was typical. He wrote in his autobiography: I am convinced that the Communist International, even though they were five thousand miles away from here, or even six thousand, understood the American situation far better than we did. They were able to teach us with regard to the American situation. In the economic collapse that followed WWI, militant trade unionists began to form labor party chapters in industrial cities. A machinists strike in Bridgeport led to formation of the labor party in 5 Connecticut towns in 1918. John Fitzpatrick and Edward Nockels of the Chicago Federation of Labor called for a national labor party in that year. Such grass-roots radicalism would normally be embraced by Marxists, but unfortunately a deeply sectarian tendency was at work in the early Communist movement. Although the Farmer-Labor Party movement was loosely socialist in orientation, it retained a populist character as well. This could be expected in the context of a worsening situation in the farmland since the turn of the century. The party received a major boost from the railway unions in 1922, after a half-million workers went on strike against wage cuts. They took the lead in calling for a Conference for Progressive Political Action (CPPA) in February, 1922, shortly before the walkout. The SP, the Farmer-Labor Party and the largest farmers organizations in the country came to the conference and declared their intention to elect candidates based on the principles of genuine democracy. In the case of the Farmer-Labor delegates, this meant nationalization of basic industry and worker participation in their management. The CP was not invited, but even if they had been invited, it is doubtful that they would have accepted. In 1919 the CP described the labor party movement as a minor phase of proletarian unrest which the trade unions had fomented in order to conserve what they had secured as a privileged caste. It concluded bombastically, There can be no compromise either with Laborism or reactionary Socialism. In 1921 Lenin and the Comintern had come to the conclusion that the chances for success in an immediate bid for power had begun to subside, as the European capitalist states had begun to regain some social and economic stability. In such a changed situation, a united front between Communists and Socialists would be advisable. This opened up the possibility for American Communists to work with the new Labor Party movement, especially since Farmer-Labor leader
Re: Historical accuracy
I just returned from visiting my daughter getting to meet Mike Yates for a few minutes. My head is spinning from this discussion. On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 09:14:50PM -0500, Doug Henwood wrote: Could someone explain what Ralph Nader's candidacy has to do with the development of a socialist party in the U.S.? I could swear he was a petit bourgeois who believed in the beauties of small business and competition. Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Historical Accuracy
Marvin Gandall writes: ...bourgeois-dominated but worker-based parties like the Democratic party in the US... If Marvin thinks the Dumbocrats are worker-based they're most welcome to his support. Shane Mage is right in noting that Lenin was talking of intervention in a class party, ie. the Labour Party, but he is wrong when he says Left-Wing Communism is concerned with the differences between the leader of the British capitalist class and the leader of the British Labor Party and that Lenin is attacking the infantile leftists explicitly because they pay attention only to the size of the differences and ignore the central point, the class antagonism between capital and labor. It makes me think he hasn't read or doesn't recall the content of Lenin's polemic. In fact, it was the so-called infantile leftists who made the class antagonism between capital and labour the central point in arguing for the need of the newly formed Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) to run independently in elections against what they regarded as the class-collaborationist Labour Party led by Henderson. This was the gist of their appeal to Moscow when the Communist International ordered the fledgling CPGB to instead enter the much larger Labour Party, to fold its own banner, and to support the LP electorally as a rope supports a hanged man. What Lenin meant by this latter much-quoted expression is that by encouraging the electoral efforts of the Labour Party, the LP workers -- supported by and patiently counseled by the Communist Party workers campaigning with them in the ridings -- would more quickly come to recognize the deficiencies of their own social-democratic leadership and program. When Lenin came down on the side of the entrists, this was quite a shock to the left-wing communists who wanted to hammer the LP leadership from the outside and ideologically expose them before the working class. The Labour Party, unlike the Liberals and Conservatives, was considered a class party -- that is to say, it was founded and funded by the trade unions, had substantial working class support, and was programatically commited to the public ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, ie. socialism. Therefore it was regarded as an appropriate venue for socialist participation and electoral support. By these criteria, it would be impermissable to participate in or call for a vote for the Democratic party. By the same token, however, it would be equally unprincipled to call for a vote for the Green Party as Louis does, and perhaps Shane as well. The Lenin of Left-Wing Communism would have rightly characterized the Greens as a progressive petit-bourgeois party which has neither has a connection to the labour movement not a program based on public ownership. The fact that the Greens represent a break with the two party system, to which Louis attaches great importance, does not make it a working class party anymore than Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose party of Lenin's time or Ross Perot's Reform party more recently -- each also representing a break with the two party system -- made them proletarian parties. So I would ask Louis on what basis he believes participation in and encouragement for the Green Party is in accordance with what he calls class criteria, while an orientation to another bourgeois party -- in this case, the Democrats, by far the much larger of the two and the one supported by the trade unions and social movements -- is denounced as a betrayal? Things, of course, have been turned on their head since Lenin wrote -- there are no longer any working class parties fitting his description -- and this necessarily affects our relationship to and social democratic parties elsewhere. But I'll wait for he and Shane to reply before taking this up. Marv Gandall - Original Message - From: Shane Mage [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 11:07 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Historical Accuracy Joel Wendland completely misunderstands what Lou and Lenin were talking about. Lenin *counterposes* the differences between Lloyd George and Churchill (differences within the executive committee of British Imperialism) to the differences between Lloyd George and Henderson--the differences between the leader of the British capitalist class and the leader of the British Labor Party, representing the great majority of the British working class. Lenin is attacking the infantile leftists explicitly because they pay attention only to the size of the differences and ignore the central point, the class antagonism between capital and labor. Their counterparts today are those who ignore the class identity between Dumbocrats and Republicons and seek out differences between Ubu and Kerry in order to avoid anything smacking of independent workingclass politics. Shane Mage Thunderbolt steers all things. Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 64 Louis Proyect wrote: In a Nov. 9, 1912, article on the U.S
Re: Historical accuracy
as usual, this commentary of Mage makes so much sense to me. ahmet tonak Shane Mage wrote: Doug Henwood asks: Could someone explain what Ralph Nader's candidacy has to do with the development of a socialist party in the U.S.? I could swear he was a petit bourgeois who believed in the beauties of small business and competition. Very simple. The central class issue in US politics for my entire political life has been the repeal of Taft-Hartley. In 1948 Truman, as one of his demagogic counters to the Henry Wallace third party candidacy, promised the repeal of that slave-labor law--and, once elected, dumped that as well as all his other promises. Nader has explicitly and strongly called for the repeal of Taft-Hartley. So much for any impression of him as petit-bourgeois. As for the development of a socialist party in the US--the condition sine qua non for that consumation devoutly to be wished is, and has always been, the breaking away of the US Labor Movement from its slavish subordination to the Dumbocratic faction of the US capitalist class. Any electorally meaningful progressive third-party campaign is a step in that direction. And all the hysteria about Nader--maybe--costing the Dumbocrats enough marginal votes in Florida and Missouri to return Ubu and his Bushits to the White House is proof that Nader's campaign is electorally meaningful. And this is not to express any indifference to the threat of a continuation of Ubuism. On the contrary, the more attractive and powerful is the Nader candidacy the larger the prospective turnout (Spain, last Sunday, proved how much fascistic parties are hurt by a big turnout). And the more possible is the crushing of Ubu by a tactical alliance fin Octobre between Nader and Kerry (Kerry withdraws from the race in Texas, Mississippi, Indiana, Virginia, Louisiana, and South Carolina in return for Nader withdrawing from the race in Florida, Missouri, Ohio, Michigan, Oregon, and West Virginia). You say that Kerry would rather see Ubu elected than make such a deal? My point about class politics, then, would be proven. Shane Mage When we read on a printed page the doctrine of Pythagoras that all things are made of numbers, it seems mystical, mystifying, even downright silly. When we read on a computer screen the doctrine of Pythagoras that all things are made of numbers, it seems self-evidently true. (N. Weiner) -- E. Ahmet Tonak Simons Rock College of Bard Great Barrington, MA 01230 Phone: 413-528 7488 Homepage: www.simons-rock.edu/~eatonak
