[Marxism] Earl Browder

Charles Brown cbrown at michiganlegal.org
Thu Oct 6 07:53:32 MDT 2005


Lause MLause 


The key to the sentence was not whether or not the CP was trying to push the
New Deal towards socialism, but that criticism of this approach did not come
about as an after-the-fact piece of hindsight.  The Democratic Party is the
graveyard of social movements and third parties...and this ad been going on
when the CPUS was nothing but a glint in Stalin's eye.

^^^^^^
CB: In the 1930's , there was success in working with and in the Democratic
Party in achieving reforms. So, no , the Democratic Party was not a
graveyard of social movements when the CPUSA was a glint in Stalin's eye.
It is only with the hindsight of today, with the longer term failure and
destruction of the New Deal reforms that one might claim that the effort was
destined to fail even in the 1930's. History could have come out differently
with the New Deal being augmented and deepened all the way to socialism,
from reform to radical reform to revolution. It was not a foregone
conclusion in the 1930's and 40's that the CPUSA strategy in relation to the
Democratic Party would fail.

^^^^^

Earl Browder's daddy--if memory serves--learned the hard lesson when he
watached the Populist movement flushed into the Democratic sewer.
Browder's grandparents generation had to level more than arguments
against supporters of Democrats like Jefferson Davis...and the previous
generation had to figure out Andrew Jackson, that colorful old
slavedriver for the common man....

The point is that the CP's approach was nothing new...and its failure
was entirely predictable based on what years and decades of radical
experience had already told us.  

^^^^^^
CB: Working with the Republican Party during the Civil War was successful.
You are lumping a lot of periods and configurations of classes together here
and drawing a spurious generalization out of that. No , the history of
radical work in relation to bourgeois parties before the 1930's does not
show that the CP's work in relation to the Democratic Pary was flawed from
the beginning. Wrong.  

^^^^^


Stalin and Popular Fronts don't need to
enter into it...the American radical experience is quite sufficient to have
rejected it.

^^^^^
CB: False.  Marx , Engels and Weidenmeyer worked in a Popular Front with the
Republicans.  

^^^^^

So, too, the argument that a revolution would have happened if the CP had
not helped sell this discredited strategy is besides the point. 

^^^^^^
CB: No it isn't.  It is a necessary claim in your argument. You _must_ argue
that your alternative strategy would have gotten a better result .
Otherwise, your criticisms of the CP are scholastic, idealist, otherworldly,
immaterial. Like disputing how many angels can fit on the head of a needle.
Starting an argument over issues that have no impact on the material world.

^^^^^^

 A revolution will most assuredly NOT happen if organized radicals continue
to urge upon the masses the idea that ruling class institutions and parties
have legitimacy. 

Solidarity

^^^^^
CB: "Legitimacy" ? They have material existence.





More information about the Marxism mailing list