Nader's Olive Branch

Louis Proyect lnp3 at
Fri Apr 6 06:53:20 MDT 2001

> But are they wrong about Nader? Did he or did he not betray this "mass
> movement?" Should we abandon analysis and let him off the hook?

Of course it is wrong. Betrayal would describe something like the French
Communist Party's attitude toward the Algerian war of independence, or the
Cuban CP's vote for Batista. The notion that Nader is accomodating toward
Bush is absolutely absurd. He has plenty of faults, but tilting toward the
Republican Party is not one of them. To Nader's credit, he has identified
the Republicans and Democrats as being two heads of the same corporate
monster. The reason that groups like the WSWS website hate him is that he
is not a socialist. But it would not even be sufficient for him to be a
socialist. These creeps accused my own party's leaders as traitors and FBI
agents during the 1970s because they had a different analysis of black
nationalism and the Cuban revolution. Sectarian groups are "correct" in
the sense that every tentative move toward independent class action will
be flawed. It is in the nature of a doing political work in a deeply
reactionary period in a deeply reactionary country. To avoid making
opportunist or reformist errors, the best thing obviously is not to dirty
your hands in the mass movement and issue ultraleft proclamations on the

>From Java class,

Louis Proyect

More information about the Marxism mailing list