[Marxism] Popular Front

rrubinelli rrubinelli at earthlink.net
Sat Oct 8 12:04:02 MDT 2005

Ok, so much for being subtle.  The line is:  "Did IQs just drop sharply
while I was away?"

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Charles Brown" <cbrown at michiganlegal.org>
> CB: Yea, if by "we" you mean Mark L forgot this little something when
he put
> forth the theory analogizing the CP of the 1930's with the radicals of
> 1820's.
> I'm glad to drop the analogy with the 1860's if we drop the analogy
with the
> 1820's.

rr:  As I understand Mark's posts, he is pointing to the entire history
of the Dem. Party as the party of accommodation, of compromise with the
backward forms, and the antecedents of urban and agricultural
capitalism.  Mark points to the "strangler" role of the Democratic Party
throughout its history regarding actual grass-roots radical movements.
Indeed that strangler role defines historical continuity in the
Democratic Party.  I believe also that Mark points to the complete
inadequacy of the Democrat and Whig party formations to express,
contain, develop, or organize the growing conflict between the
development means of production (represented by advancing capitalism)
and the relations of government, property, power (as represented by the
"overweighting" of the slave power from stem to stern in the Federal

The emerging class, and the emerging class struggle, required its own
party in its own interests, developing, or attempting to articulate, its
self interest as the interest of  all of society. That also required a
civil war.  Civil war.  Emerging class leading society in armed
struggle. That, by the way, is the difference between the bourgeoisie of
the Republican party of the 1850s, 60, and part of the 70s, and the
bourgeoisie of the Spanish-American War, the bourgeoisie of Plessy vs.
Ferguson, the bourgeoisie of the "compromise" restoring the Southern
planters, call it the transformation of civil war into imperialist war.
> CB: Aren't we forgetting a little something like nobody was talking
> the 1890's , but rather the 1930's ?

rr:  I am talking about the 1890s as indicative of the change of the
bourgeoisie from "radical," from tearing up "archaic" property forms, to
absorbing, embracing, embedding such forms, the  change as a class for
radical social transformation to a class of reaction against
substantive transformation.

> CB: How could we forget that ? So, are you saying that because of the
> abandonment of Radical Reconstruction in 1870's that there could be no
> fronting with a bourgeois party in the 1930's ?

rr:  Exactly!  Correctomente!  Outstanding!
> CB: Aren't we fogetting a little thing like it was precisely the

> of the Soviet Union that made a qualitatively different world
situation in
> 1930 as compared to the situation in Russia _before_ the Russian
rr:  Be careful what you wish for here, Comrade.  If the Soviet Union
makes the world qualitatively different, thus allowing for collaboration
with the bourgeoisie, then everyone should accept the Soviet's role in
destruction and defeat of workers movements across the globe and for

So here we have, according to you, a best case scenario, where the
lessons of October, that collaboration in the organs of power with the
bourgeoisie cannot advance, secure, the needs of revolution, are
actually the anti-lessons of October, once one sector of the working
class has conquered power, by ignoring the anti-lesson you would like to
impose on every other workers movement.

None of that for me, no thank you. Can't handle the cognitive dissonance
involved in such self-contradiction.

"Ripley, in nineteen minutes this area is going to be a cloud of vapor
the size of Nebraska!"--Bishop

More information about the Marxism mailing list