Sanders Discussion

TimW333521 at TimW333521 at
Mon Mar 6 22:31:54 MST 1995

I believe, despite the differences, this thread has yielded a rich
discussion.  Some comments:

I think the question of Social Democracy in the U.S. is posed incorrectly.
 The problem we face is to develop a political expression for socialism in
the United States.  That can come about only out of a process and not out of
somebody's recipe book.  That process will certainly yield  -- prior to any
potential revolutionary development  -- a political movement in defense of
workers and others essentially around reform issues.  You may if you wish
call that "Social Democratic" or "transitional" or what.  More radical ideas
can only take root out of the broader struggle.  That's the point.

"Ultra-Lefts" are those who refuse in practice to proceed in the above
fashion: e.g. Sparts, WL, MIM, NOC, RCP, SWP, etc., etc.  Revolutionaries who
seek to develop movements broader than themselves as outlined above are not
in my opinion "Ultra-Lefts."

I feel very  much pulled by the arguments of those who condemn any
relationship with the Dems.  Certainly in this day of Clinton this is a
tempting position.  Further, it is a position I have held for almost 40

The problem, however, is that the labor movement and most progressives who
would be the core of a new socialist oriented political party in this country
happen to be in the Democratic Party.  What do we do about them?  Is Sanders
politically really that different  than Dellums or Wellstone because he is
not a member?  Would any conveivable mass based independent labor or
progressive party have politics much different from the three?

My suggestion is that we DEMAND that the left within the Dems fights tooth
and nail against both Newt and Clinton's compromises with reaction.  This is
one part of the process of a realigned left movement here.  The other is
independent efforts: Peace & Freedom, New Party, Greens, etc.

     --- from list marxism at ---


More information about the Marxism mailing list