[Marxism] Popular Front

Charles Brown cbrown at michiganlegal.org
Wed Oct 19 13:25:16 MDT 2005


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

^^^^^
CB: I get smarter everyday, and I was really smart to start out with. I'm
not so sure about your IQ.

^^^^^^

 > 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
the
> 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. 

^^^
CB: This is not a good theory because the Democratic Party and U.S. system
went through a historical shift over the long period he mentions. The Dems
were the party of the slaveowners. With the end of slavery, the material
base changes and the parties in the superstructure changed qualitatively.
So, tracing continuity within the Dem Party is an empty thesis.

The world situation had qualitatively changed in the 1930's as well, as
there was the new Soviet Union, unlike througout the 1900's

^^^^

 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.  

^^^
CB: This would be begging the question. The issue in dispute is whether the
Dems were stranglers in the 1930's.

^^^

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
government).

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: Which does _not_get us up to the 1930's , when a new situation arises
from the period you describe here.

^^^^^
_________________________
>
> CB: Aren't we forgetting a little something like nobody was talking
about
> 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: Some of the bourgeoisie were radical before that. Some weren't. By  the
1930's, some of the bourgeoisie were progressive.


> 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:  Well, the bourgeoisie had been uniformly reactionary in the 1800's,
sixty years before the 1860's. It didn't mean no fronting with a bourgeois
party in the 1960's
______________________
> CB: Aren't we fogetting a little thing like it was precisely the
existence

> of the Soviet Union that made a qualitatively different world
situation in
> 1930 as compared to the situation in Russia _before_ the Russian
Revolution
________________________
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 decades.

^^^^
CB: That pretty much sounds like a non sequitur to me.

^^^^

Rr: 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.

^^^^
CB: That's not according to me. That's some purposefully warped and
distorted, I don't even know if I can say "paraphrase" of a shadow of what I
said,...lets call it a obvious strawman.

It wasn't a lesson of October, but an attempt to support October.


^^^^^^^

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

^^^^^
CB: Didn't Marx say a measure of "Intelligence" is the ability to hold two
contradictory ideas in mind at the same time ? Maybe it is your IQ that has
dropped since you were last here.

^^^^


"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