owen.daviies37 at ntlworld.com
Tue Aug 28 10:39:10 MDT 2007
Quick reply, Mark.
> The Democratic Party is a party not a popular front. You might, indeed,
> find it "helpful" to call it one because you believe it "permissible to
> enter popular fronts, fight for a socialist programme," etc., etc., etc.
As a party though it does seem quite loose. More of a loose alliance which
in the past has probably been a strength but could prove to be an Achilles
Heel in the future.
> But, of course, you could say the same thing about the Republican Party or
> the Catholic Church or the Norwood Chess Club. Actually, you can say it
> about anything. And, certainly anyone is welcome to believe that pixies
> dance in his garden, if he wants, but, as far as analysis goes, it "helps"
> about as much as a hit of acid at a Papal visitation.
Perhaps you could say it about those other institutions but I wouldn't. A
lot of organised workers support it, minorities, environmentalists etc. The
kind of people socialist would want on their side.
> Please TRY to follow this....
> You can't influence the Democratic Party by giving it more money than the
> bourgeoisie. Less so now than at any point in its history. If anyone's
> going to get up and fight for a socialist program in the DP, please set up
> webcam first and let the rest of know. And you can no more influence the
> by voting for it than you can make an auto company produce a better
> next year by buying whatever they're selling now.
> In short, you can't really influence it in the way you're discussing. It
> ain't yours and you're not allowed to touch the important bits.
Well, I didn't say the purpose was to influence it. I said the purpose was
to break it up. Programme first. We must have confidence that our
programme will gain the ear of the vanguard of the working class.
More information about the Marxism