Re: Re: RE: The Nader Campaign, part three: historical precendents and sectarianism
David, where I was wrong in the way I answered Lou, and I've been thinking about it for hours, was in the absurdly uncomradely way I dismissied Nader - uncomradely to Lou, that is. If he feels and people I respect feels there is some point to promoting Nader, then it's crass for someone to arrive boots first in the discussion from a long way off and without first hand knowledge or without hvaing sensed the mood at first hand, so Mea maxima culpa. In short, it's wrong for me to label Nader a 'dubious creep' and thank you for giving me the chance to correct myself. What I'd like to see is for Lou to develop his thoughts about why Nader should be campaigned for, and why in general we should be putting forward Father Gapon figures (I know, shouldn't call him that way either). So my tone was wrong to . I understand the parall;el you want to draw with Livingstone. He is also a compromised figure, but I supported him, right? Well, I think Nader should be supported, but he should be persistently challenged on his polices and his ideas. However, there one slight difference between Nader and Livingstone (several actually). Livingstone won. He, too, should be and was and is challenged. But he represented a huge plurality. Nader may get around 10%. That is not a plurality, that is a man and a programme which in general we ought to reject, capturing the left/greens as a constituency and that is not a goal worth turning into a cheshire cat over. What happens afterwards, the next time someone tries to organise something big? They will have the whole, federally-financed electoral apparatus of the Greens to answer to. It won't be pretty, it will awful. But I'd like to hear more from Lou. Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList - Original Message - From: "David Welch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2000 11:16 PM Subject: [PEN-L:21164] Re: RE: The Nader Campaign, part three: historical precendents and sectarianism > On Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 10:51:40PM +0100, Mark Jones wrote: > > Just like telling > > people to abandon all doubt "commit their heart and soul", fall glumly > > silent, and then give their all for some dubious creep like Ralph Nader, in > > fact. > > > Or Ken Livingstone? > >
Re: RE: The Nader Campaign, part three: historical precendents and sectarianism
On Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 10:51:40PM +0100, Mark Jones wrote: > Just like telling > people to abandon all doubt "commit their heart and soul", fall glumly > silent, and then give their all for some dubious creep like Ralph Nader, in > fact. > Or Ken Livingstone?
RE: The Nader Campaign, part three: historical precendents and sectarianism
Louis Proyect wrote: > > American Marxists have always been ambivalent about electoral formations > arising to the left of the Democrats and Republicans. On one hand they > would view such third parties as a necessary alternative to the two-party > system; on the other, they inevitably regard them as rivals. Even when > Lenin urged support for reformist electoral parties, he couched this in > terms of the way a rope supports a hanging man. Needless to say, this > outlook would almost condemn Marxists to irrelevancy when a genuine > electoral initiative like the Nader campaign emerges. Unless > revolutionaries are committed in their heart and soul to grass roots > movements, electoral or non-electoral, such begrudging tokens of support > are bound to lead to missteps. > This begs a lot of questions. In what sense is Nader's campaign ''a genuine electoral initiative''? What does it mean to ask revolutionaries to be ''committed in their heart and soul to grass roots> movements, electoral or non-electoral''.? Does it mean that no questions must be asked, no criticisms voiced? Perhaps now is also the time for us to discuss your perception of the history and role of the Comintern, and what is meant by 'Zinovievism'. You seem to see in it only the most baleful kind of sectarianism, but wasn't the truth that from very early times, the later 1920s anyway, the CP's were completely reformist in practice and in the accommodations their leaderships made to capitalist circumstances? What this meant in practice was a constant, unremitting pressure by the leadership on the rank and file to conform with the leadership's "class line" which was always dressed up in Leninist phraseology but was always in reality, hopelessly reformist and socially appeasing. No wonder people got cynical and gave up in disgust. The very first tract recruits were ever shown was 'Leftwing communism, an infantile disorder'. What was drummed endlessly into their heads was exactly the notion that they must abandon all the revolutionary aspiration and commitment which first brought them into the party, and instead commit themselves ''heart and soul'' to whatever crass deal, movement or witches' brew of compromises the leadership just then dreamed up. Just like telling people to abandon all doubt "commit their heart and soul", fall glumly silent, and then give their all for some dubious creep like Ralph Nader, in fact. Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
