some comment on globalization

Louis Proyect lnp3 at
Thu Sep 6 07:40:49 MDT 2001

>Secondly, it must not be regarded as an accident that two of these
>political figures were prominent in the right-wing "fascist" danger of
>the 1940s and 1950s. Further, and you can check out Gerald Horne's
>well-argued book "Class Struggle in Hollywood" for a good analysis of

One of the key points in Gerald's book is that the CP-influenced unions in
Hollywood had failed to challenge racism sufficiently. This isolated them
from the black community and made it easier for the landmark post-WWII
strike (can't recall the year) to be busted.

>Third, the argument that the working class must be convinced to break
>away from some electoral formation seems quite academic and "old."

No, it's not. Malcolm X made this argument in the 1960s as did Eugene V.
Debs at the turn of the century. We would have had a viable labor party if
the CP had not tied the workers movement to the Democratic Party in the
1930s. So deep was the hostility of the CP rank-and-file to the Democrats
that they had to come up with maneuvers like the American Labor Party,
which was created in order to create the illusion that a break was imminent.

Oddly enough, even though Harvey Klehr's book "The Secret World of American
Communism" was intended to show that the CP was 'subversive', the evidence
is that was anything but. By all evidence, the CP defended the Roosevelt
administration like a grizzly bear mom defends her cubs. In Chapter six we
find out about an NKVD document on communications between Earl Browder, the
head of the CPUSA, and Franklin Roosevelt. FDR congratulates Browder and
the CPUSA for conducting its political line skillfully and helping US
military efforts. Roosevelt is "particularly pleased" with the battle of
New Jersey Communists against a left-wing Labor Party formation there. He
was happy that the CPUSA had been able to unite various factions of the
Democratic Party against the left-wing electoral opposition and render it

> Additionally, marxists know, or ought to, that no
>political formation is monolithic, right?

Of course not. The Democratic Party makes sure to include people like John
Conyers and Major Owens in order to keep its credibility. The issue before
us, however, is whether they have any effect on the big questions facing
working people, like unemployment, war, health care, etc.

> I think Scott is arguing that
>the current struggle is against the ultra-right program of SAP's
>(privatization, cutting social services, attacks on the trade union
>movement), that the struggle for democracy (the most visible form of
>which arose after the Bush selection--oh wait once again I'm talking
>about a political party...or maybe about civil rights...)is linked to
>this, that the struggle against the right and SAP's is at a local level
>the struggle against globalization, and the struggle for social control
>over the movement of capital, but requires working-class unity, and it
>is up to Marxists (Communists, Trotskyists, independents,
>anarcho-libertarian socialists, etc.) to help paddle that boat.

Torpedoes, anybody?

Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list:

More information about the Marxism mailing list