[Marxism] sectarian TONC approach to May 1st
amaral1871 at gmail.com
Tue Apr 11 09:48:04 MDT 2006
On 4/10/06, Andrew Pollack <acpollack2 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am VERY glad it has come up at the steering committee (which I am not on). But that makes the sectarianism even more criminal. As does the fact that the initial call appears to have come from a much broader milieu and already provided the opportunity to build a united front in NY for May 1st..
> Plus, eventually there will have to be a fight against endorsement of liberal Senate legislation. So far in NY we've been lucky that everyone has come out against guest worker programs even though the SEIU nationally has been awful on this and even on the repressive non-amnesty provisions of the McCain-Kennedy proposals. The last thing we need is a separate sectarian group upholding radical demands on this issue, as opposed to a united front where a fight can be held for principled but inclusive demands.
I am not necessarily disagreeing with you viz. the standard operating
procedure of certain organisations. Is this your point, that TONC
would run around claiming themselves the leadership of what is a
actual existing national united front effort around May first (did you
see the LP posting on Nativo Lopez and Lou Dobbs?)? This seems a minor
quirk but worthy of annoyance.
But it doesn't seem to me that the demands layed out for the first (
there are four basic points - dont have them handy) are radical
demands that are going to scuttle a united front fight against what
comes out of congress. One of the more interesting things about this
dynamic is that the rightwing elements within the movement don't
really even have an 'acceptable' fall back position because
McCain/Kennedy, as problematic as that was, has been successively
gutted (first by the Specter Committee and then by the by the
leadership agreement) by the congressional right.
I found it amazing how willing people were, yesterday, to take up the
chant of amnesty even against the pleadings of the liberal leadership.
'Legalisation' on its own is such a weak demand particularly given
that everything that has come out of the senate thus far has some
'path to legalisation' - just not any you would wish your worst enemy
to have to walk (we have different plans for them :) )
More information about the Marxism