Louis wrote:
Describing oneself or someone as a "revolutionary" outside of a
revolutionary period is utterly meaningless to me.
This is a straw man that Marvin is trying to knock down.
Marxists always fight for reforms. Revolutionaries are tested by their
ability to push for reforms in the most effective manner. For example, it
was more effective to demonstrate for abortion rights in the streets of
the
USA than it was to stump for votes for liberal Democrats. It was more
effective to organize demonstrations for Out Now than it was to go "Clean
for Gene" in 1968. It was more effective for Blacks to organize civil
rights marches than to line up votes for LBJ. It was more effective for
trade unionists to organize sit-down strikes in the 1930s than tail after
FDR who adopted a "plague on bother your houses" stance.
============================
The intent of my comments was not to denigrate Marxists who fight for
reforms, but to suggest that how people perceive themselves today and the
struggles they involve themselves in is not a meaningful indicator of how
they would react in a serious revolutionary crisis. You may be reacting
personally, and you shouldn't; the remark wasn't aimed at you, and shouldn't
be seen as controversial in itself.
You are misunderstanding the struggles you cite above drawn from trade
union, black, and women's history. The "revolutionaries" in each case were,
as you would expect, far outnumbered by liberals, social democrats, and even
conservatives - including at the leadership level - and in each instance
they saw the Democrats, rightly or wrongly, as the party which would carry
the demands they were demonstrating for into the legislative arena.
