On Sun, Oct 20, 2024 at 11:44 AM, Marv Gandall wrote: > > Should we take this to to mean that the trade union, civil rights, > womens' gay, and other social movements should not have sought to > translate their demands into legislative reforms through the Democratic > Party? Or through the Labour and social democratic parties elsewhere? >
Again, this is not the issue, and ignores the real history surrounding these movements: 1. The industrial union movement, civil rights, anti-war in Vietnam etc.-- none of these originated within the Democratic Party 2. Civil rights and the union movement, women's equality were generated by economic forces, class relations, and changes in the make-up of the working class. The role of the Democratic Party was to obscure those class relations, contain the class struggle within, and in order to strengthen the dominance of capitalism. Same with the anti-war movement. 3. That was accomplished, and what happened to those movements?--they split, fractured and withered. The more militant factions--SNCC, the League of Revolutionary Black Workers did not advocate entry into the Democratic Party. (How anyone could advocate that after 1964 and the treatment of the MFDP remains beyond my comprehension). 4. The question isn't about the response of bourgeois institutions to mass movements, but whether or not Marxist parties should adhere to those particular accommodations as either a substitute for, or an advance of the movement itself. You think the New Deal was a giant step forward? Not so much for black workers, specifically excluded in domestic and agricultural labor, was it? So you endorse advance for a portion of the class and sacrifice the welfare of the most oppressed? Doesn't sound very progressive to me You want to endorse the bourgeoisie's "right" to determine the appropriateness of labor actions? Hello NLRB and get ready for McCarran and Taft-Hartley. 5. Let's put Marv's question in perspective by turning it around. Should, given the Democrats legislative accommodation to civil rights, industrial unionism, women's equality, Marxist organizations have entered the Democratic Party, endorsed FDR, HST, AES, JFK, LBJ, McGovern, Carter, Clinton etc? --Well a) guess what? some did. Hasn't worked out so well, has it? b) if so, what distinguishes a Marxist organization from a union bureaucracy; from Jesse Jackson's PUSH or Rainbow Coalition, etc? c) how do you ever build an organization that ever can leave that party, as would have certainly been appropriate during the Vietnam War etc? 6. The questions I posed remain unanswered. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#33051): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/33051 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/109066560/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: marxmail+ow...@groups.io Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
