====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
The sense of what's frivolous matches the high-level math. :-) The substance of my points haven't been engaged. I leave it to readers whether they've been effectively deflected by questions about what "class struggle" means..... Even in the rather modest rediscovery of socialism in the radicalization of the 1960s, it happened differently in the urban black communities than it did among white college students, for example, and it was different from city to city and from one kind of college to another. Attempts to create a class organization means different things in different circumstances, partly because the immediate concerns to which they are responding differ, as do the localized obstacles. But this is all obvious, isn't it? There are already many organized currents and tendencies in the workers' movement, though most of these are too small to have much weight. When workers begin going into motion, they tend to create more tendencies... I'd argue that because the American working class is fractured, layers and complex, you can't launch any single party at this point that will grow to encompass its political organization as a class. Struggles historically cut their own channels. The reason I'm making such a point of this is that our collective experience demonstrates pretty clearly that an insistence on a single socialist party redefines those groups and individuals outside that party as being not quite as socialist. Something like this list reflects a very broad spectrum of views, all of which will play a role in shaping the movement's future. ML ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
