[Marxism] DSA member Ocasio-Cortez elected (Jason)

Louis Proyect lnp3 at panix.com
Mon Jul 2 18:14:22 MDT 2018

On 7/2/18 7:33 PM, Jason via Marxism wrote:
> It wasn't just the Dutch and the main condition was universal suffrage in
> this case but there were a range of conditions and considerations involved
> in other cases throughout the Second International. Also, while you're glib
> about the suffrage question, I think there is a power small-d democratic
> argument to made for socialists voting for the Democratic Party simply on
> democratic grounds given that various kinds of voter suppression affect the
> Democratic Party vote more so and purposively so.

You keep coming up with these obscure references to Second International 
parties voting for liberals, with Lenin supposedly agreeing with you, 
Carl Davidson et al based on a single article from 1912 that is the 
calling card of Maoists like Mike Ely and people moving headlong into 
the Democratic Party like Pham Binh. Lenin wrote 100,000 words at least 
attacking the idea of voting for the Cadets and you come up with the 
same single article I've seen referenced by everybody calling themselves 
a Marxist or a socialist that favors an "inside-outside" strategy. On 
top of that you come up with an even more obscure reference to the Dutch 
social democracy in 1905. It's like this. If you want to ring doorbells 
for the Democratic Party, there's no need to be like an attorney digging 
through law books to dig up a precedent. Do you honestly think that 
anybody reading your emails will become converted to the Democratic 
Party because of a single article by Lenin that supposedly makes him 
identical to Martov?

With 1500 subscribers to Marxmail, I doubt that there are 20 that would 
want to waste their time under any circumstances to volunteer for a 
DSA-backed candidate. Coming up with these Talmudic references would be 
the last thing in the world to convince someone to become the 2018 
equivalent of Eugene McCarthy volunteers from 50 years ago. The people 
who ring doorbells and think of themselves as "Democratic Socialists" 
have likely never read Lenin, Trotsky or Rosa Luxemburg.

> For the rest of your email, you read a lot into the phrase "liberal
> workers’ government" as a reason to dismiss Lenin's arguments on the
> British Labor Party (which you have still not addressed directly in any
> substantive way). Further, this reference is misleading since your
> reference is incomplete. As John Riddell
> https://johnriddell.wordpress.com/2012/01/01/a-workers-government-as-a-step-toward-socialism/
> documents, that version did not include the amendment that the first two
> types listed were "illusory" and were "in reality hidden coalition
> governments between the bourgeoisie and antirevolutionary workers’
> leaders".

I think what I wrote is crystal clear. When the Comintern referred to 
"bourgeois" parties in the 1922 article I cited, it was talking about 
the Democratic Party in the USA, the Liberal Party in England, not the 
Labour Party. It advocated the election or revolutionary seizure of 
power by an alliance of Communists and Social Democrats. You could 
understand why it was moving in this direction since a year later this 
was what nearly happened in Germany, if it wasn't for the stupidity of 
the German CP. A Social Democrat named Erich Zeigner, who was the 
governor of the state of Saxony, became convinced of the need to 
organize an uprising co-led by the CP and the SP. As Werner Angress 
points out in his great history of the German CP between 1919 and 1925, 
Zeigner called for expropriation of the capitalist class, arming of the 
workers and a proletarian dictatorship. In other words, there was zero 
differences between him and the CP on the goal but the uprising was 
stillborn because the CP had its head up its ass. So if things had not 
gotten so bollixed up, this would have led to a workers government. This 
is exactly what was needed. How anybody could twist the words of the 
1922 Comintern article favoring such a strategy into ringing doorbells 
for the Democratic Party is beyond belief.

> Also, you still have not demonstrated that this is a "Menshevik electoral
> strategy" I'm talking about since it also reflects Bolshevik strategy and
> that of  Luxemburg and others.

How do you expect me or anybody else to convince you of anything? You 
are a case-hardened reformist.

More information about the Marxism mailing list