[Marxism] Popular Front
lnp3 at panix.com
Sat Oct 8 10:49:18 MDT 2005
>Also, rarely (never ?) do I see an overall strategy spelledout on how
>radicals will build a movement today completely outside the DP. There is an
>obligation to project in more detail exactly how the anti-DP mass movement
>will be developed.
The left should have supported Nader and Camejo in 2004, not John Kerry.
That is about as spelled out as you can get. Here are the two strategies
side by side:
Counterpunch Weekend Edition
March 27 / 28, 2004
Marxists for Kerry
Stop Bush; Move Forward
By JOEL WENDLAND
"When will it end?" asks my long-time friend and Nader supporter Tom --.
"When will the cycle of supporting the lesser evil Democrat against the
vicious, corrupt Republicans end in our liberation from the two-party
trap?" I'm not in the business of predicting the future much so I shrug. I
support the lesser of two evils philosophy and will vote for Kerry and will
encourage others to do likewise; even more so, I will campaign for his
election on November 2.
This has been a source of deep-rooted contention and near bare-knuckle
brawling between Tom and I for several years now.
"I know that our immediate interest lies in making sure a sexist,
homophobic, racist anti-union, war monger isn't allowed to keep office," I
"And Kerry's better?"
"Yes. I think he is more open to popular influence."
THE AVOCADO DECLARATION
The Green Party is at a crossroads. The 2004 elections place before us a
clear and unavoidable choice. On one side, we can continue on the path of
political independence, building a party of, by and for the people by
running our own campaign for President of the United States. The other
choice is the well-trodden path of lesser evil politics, sacrificing our
own voice and independence to support whoever the Democrats nominate in
order; we are told, to defeat Bush.
The difference is not over whether to "defeat Bush" - understanding by that
the program of corporate globalization and the wars and trampling of the
Constitution that come with it - but rather how to do it. We do not believe
it is possible to defeat the "greater" evil by supporting a shamefaced
version of the same evil. We believe it is precisely by openly and sharply
confronting the two major parties that the policies of the corporate
interests these parties represent can be set back and defeated.
Ralph Nader's 2000 presidential campaign exposed a crisis of confidence in
the two party system. His 2.7 million votes marked the first time in modern
history that millions voted for a more progressive and independent
alternative. Now, after three years of capitulation by the Democratic Party
to George Bush they are launching a pre-emptive strike against a 2004 Ralph
Nader campaign or any Green Party challenge. Were the Greens right to run
in 2000? Should we do the same in 2004? The Avocado Declaration based on an
analysis of our two party duopoly, and its history declares we were right
and we must run.
ORIGINS OF THE PRESENT TWO-PARTY SYSTEM
History shows that the Democrats and Republicans are not two counterposed
forces but rather complimentary halves of a single two-party system: "one
animal with two heads that feed from the same trough," as Chicano leader
Rodolfo "Corky" González explained.
Since the Civil War a peculiar two party political system has dominated the
United States. Prior to the Civil War a two-party system existed reflecting
opposing economic platforms. Since the Civil War a shift occurred. A
two-party system remained in place but no longer had differing economic
orientation. Since the Civil War the two parties show differences in their
image, role, social base and some policies but in the last analysis they
both support essentially similar economic platforms.
This development can be clearly dated to the split in the Republican Party
of 1872 where one wing merged with the "New Departure" Democrats that had
already shifted towards the Republican platform of pro- finance and
industrial business. Prior to the Civil War the Democratic Party controlled
by the slaveocracy favored agriculture business interests, developed an
alliance with small farmers in conflict with industrial and some commercial
interests. That division ended with the Civil War. Both parties supported
financial and industrial business as the core of their programmatic outlook.
For over 130 years the two major parties have been extremely effective in
preventing the emergence of any mass political formations that challenge
their political monopoly. Most attempts to build political alternatives
have been efforts to represent the interests of the average person, the
working people. These efforts have been unable to develop. Both major
parties have been dominated by moneyed interests and today reflect the
historic period of corporate rule.
In this sense United States history has been different from that of any
other advanced industrial nation. In all other countries multi party
systems have appeared and to one degree or other they have more democratic
electoral laws and more representation has existed. In almost all other
cases political parties ostensible based on or promoting the interest of
non-corporate sectors such as working people exist.
More information about the Marxism