[Marxism] RE: Who is David Cobb?

Paul H. Dillon illonph at pacbell.net
Fri Jul 16 11:55:56 MDT 2004


Tony,

Your insistence on stark dichotomy makes for theoretical purity and
ultimately leads to such things as Year Zero and other myths.  What it
manifestly doesn't do is recognize differences in the ruling class,
differences  that should be tactically acknowledged, Lenin wrote extensively
about the differences in the different groups of the capitalist
entrepreneurs and their representatives. So yes there is a difference, but
not one that matters long-term but that I believe does matter short term,
and I insist that there are major differences between the present
administration and one that the dems would push especially on domestic
issues.   My only  position relevant to the construction of a movement
toward socialism  is that Cobb's insistence on practical party building at
the local level is more realistic than Nader's quixotic forays into the
national press.  I think this war will be won by the liliputians or not at
all.

Paul



Paul
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tony Abdo" <gojack10 at hotmail.com>
To: <marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 8:48 AM
Subject: [Marxism] RE: Who is David Cobb?


> But Paul, you did take a position.  Your position was clear, too, just
like
> Cobb's position is as clear as all the other anybody but Bush crowd.  Your
> position is simply put, that the Democrats are better than the
Republicans.
>
> <<Tony,
> Your response illustrates very clearly (to me at least) why the left has
no
> significant  popular roots in the U.S.  You put a lot of things in my
mouth
> that never came out of them to begin with.  You arrogantly tilt at
> windmills..  I really wasn't taking any position as much as providing
> counter evidence to the article on Cobb.>>
>
> What is so sad about this position you take that the DP is better than RP,
> is that all the evidence is exactly totally to the contrary to what you
> assert as something that should be so obvious to us all.  And since the
> evidence is actually that the Democrats are exactly as bad for us a as the
> Republicans are, you try to spread a smoke screen about winning local
> elections as being how to animate building a new mass movement.  But you
> have no evidence for that, either.  Local elections are won for activists
> after the mass movement is built, not as forerunner to it.
>
> <<But against the most fundamental
> statement concerning building mass movements out of taking control of
local
> governments you have nothing to say except, "I don't believe that's the
way
> you build mass movements."  Hmm?  How do you build them in the present
(not
> the 30s or 60s)?  I've seen more come out of the support that local
> governments can provide to organizing at other levels. Paul>>
>
> Did the Civil Rights Movement or the Women's Movement or the AntiVietnam
War
> Movement get their main impetus from electing local officials first?  And
> was it organizing to get nicer people into local offices back then how
those
> movements were constructed?  You ask how to build a movement today, and
the
> answer is by certainly not  by just trying to elect 'better' people to
> office.  And the answer is also that mass movements will only be
constructed
> by opposing the Democratic Party, not by telling people to go out and vote
> Edwards and Kerry, as Cobb and you want to do.  Mass movements are built
> around inspirational ideas, not sordid, compromised, selling off of the
> soul.
>
> What is most disturbing about the  pseudo-socailist 'anybody but Bush'
camp,
> is the absolute spinelessness of the attitude.  It's the attitude that
> something great is being risked by not pushing for voting for the class
> enemy, Kerry  How can a movement be built for change with such a spineless
> mentality?  To me, it recalls the spinelessness of socialists that will
not
> build a movement against the US military, simply because they say that
there
> is no activism around the issue as of yet. Translation; we will not push
for
> what is unpopular at the moment, because we would seem so unreal and
> unpopular.
>
> Spinelessness masquerading as pragmatic realism!  It makes one want to
puke.
>   And that's what the working class sees in liberalism and liberals. They
> see spineless wimps, not pragmatists.  And they are bored with it all, and
> stay home.  It's not the attitude of standing up for class independence
that
> makes the US Left miniscule, Paul.  It's the attitude of constantly
running
> to elect Kerrys and Edwards to office, even when that's clearly not what
> anybody really wants.
>
> Cobb is a jelly fish building nothing, and not a grand strategic
pragmatist.
>   Even all the Al Frankens and Michael Moores and Norman Solomons come out
> looking like spineless wimps, with this anybody-but Bush, Reagan, or
> Goldwater stuff.  Gus Hall pushed this crap along with the Russian CP.
They
> built zip. We go through this nonsense every four years. Paul, you should
be
> ashamed of yourself.  I have not been unfair to you.
>
> Tony
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Planning a family vacation? Check out the MSN Family Travel guide!
> http://dollar.msn.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Marxism mailing list
> Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism





More information about the Marxism mailing list