Compromising to build a coalition?
mauro.jr at iol.it
Mon Nov 6 16:08:33 MST 1995
>Date: Mon, 06 Nov 1995 16:40:37
>To: spector at calumet.purdue.edu
>From: Mauro junior <mauro.jr at iol.it>
>Subject: Re: Compromising to build a coalition?
>At 14.06 02/11/95 -0600, Alan S. wrote:
>> General Powell was in charge of the killings of hundreds of thousands
>>of Iraquis to serve British and U.S. oil and banking interests.
>> The idea of a third electoral party seems to be a serious compromise away
>>from class struggle.
>>The idea of moving the Democratic Party to the left is an even worse
>> Now what do we have? A proposal to try to move the Republican Party to the
>> Maybe we should consider if Pat Robertson is available as an alternative to
>>David Duke. Or David Duke, who is not as reactionary as some of the Aryan
>>Nation/Skinhead Nazis. Maybe Martin Borman is still alive....was he to the
>>Left of Hitler?
>>Sorry for the sarcasm. But if we want to EMPOWER the grassroots working
>>class people to build struggles and to build a movement that THEY control,
>>then we should realize that promoting these various capitalist politicians
>>sends the message out that we should rely on the capitalist bankers and
>>politicians for our liberation, rather than do the painstaking work that
>>heroic women and men have carried on for centuries--building a class
>>consciousness and a movement that can reflect and direct that class
>>consciousness towards creating an egalitarian society--with a strong,
>>self-confident working class--free from fascism, war and all other forms of
>>racist-sexist capitalist exploitation and oppression.
>Yes Alan, many of the list'subscribers since long are sending "the message
out that we should rely on the capitalist bankers and politicians for our
>The classical reformism is the political tendency which support the
necessity to reform the systsem of the social-political-economical
relationship, for improving it and make it more adequate to match the needs
and aspirations of the community.
>Such a politics used to be carried on by socialdemocratic parties - before
- and by the self-calling communist parties after the victory of the
counter-revolution in USSR.
>They were mass-parties which were based on the "class in itself", only in
the sense that they found in it the mass supporters of their politics (OK,
Adam R. ?), while expressing a bourgeois politics. In other terms, they
expressed the class as the variable element of capital, inside the capital's
dynamic and establishment, in the period of the apparent equilibrium of the
society (the ascendant period of the accumulation's cycle).
> Afterwards, the USSR collapsed, the ideological reference-point of the CPs
collapsed; the crises, coinciding with the third technological revolution
hit the working class bot with massive unemployment and a dramatic change in
its internal composition (with a deep change in its internal hierarchies).
Both the SPs and CPs ceased to refer to the labor as their electoral base
and political rank and files. And it's interesting to examine the painful
ideological process of these political abandons.
>The leftists (of the political bourgeois scene) remained without the Great
Mother to criticize and whom quarrel with, but to support.
>Now they have to look around searching for somebody, some man (or woman),
some faction to support when the key times (for them)come: the elections.
>Thus you can undestand how is it that such a terrific revolutionaries,
holding up the Guevara's portrait, or the Sandinistas'flags, gave support to
Clinton. And you'll see them to turn over to some new political gangster in
Tel (-39)02/35.51.275 fax (-39)02/33.200.101
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism