Re: RE: Re: Re: Million demonstrators in France
On Fri, 3 May 2002 13:43:26 +0100, Davies, Daniel wrote: >Two questions: > >1) How does one use one's vote to "promote >socialism" in a two-candidate race between a >conservative and a fascist? In a sense, your question reveals a different understanding of the role of elections. I agree with Lenin's approach. They are opportunities to raise socialist ideas. If a revolutionary party ever came close to winning a national election, the bourgeoisie would resort to a coup or fascism. "Whilst you lack the strength to do away with bourgeois parliaments and every other type of reactionary institution, you must work within them because it is there that you will still find workers who are duped by the priests and stultified by the conditions of rural life; otherwise you risk turning into nothing but windbags." http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/apr/lwc/ch07.htm But Lenin never urged a vote for a bourgeois party. That was Stalin's innovation who simply appropriated the disastrous "lesser evil" electoral policy of the German Socialist Party. >2) Given (1), how is the decision to vote >Chirac incompatible with the promotion of >socialism? Of course. Our primary task is to educate working people that they have different class interests from the owners of the means of production. >It is not as if the French socialists are >actually supporting Chirac, or making common >cause; they continue to promote their own party >as being a better choice for the parliamentary >elections and as Chris Burford pointed out, >"Vote for the crook, not the fascist" is hardly >a ringing endorsement. The American SDS said something like this in 1964, "Part of the Way with LBJ" (as opposed to the official slogan "All the Way with LBJ". The Communist Party had a hysterical campaign about the need "to stop the war-mongering Goldwater". Look what it got the left, the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. >It seems to me that the current French election >is a reductio ad absurdum of the proposition >that to advocate a vote for a bourgeois party is >always and everywhere a mockery of socialist >principles. Well, look. There are all kinds of socialists. Albert Shanker was a leader of the SDUSA, while his teachers union included Trotskyists. Part of our job is to draw clear lines of demarcation between genuine socialism and pro-capitalist ideologues who call themselves socialists, if you gather my drift. This has been a problem since the days when the Lasalleists in the German Social Democracy backed the Kaiser because of his "enlightened" social policies. Marx answered them with Critique of the Gotha Program. This is an unending job because of the ability of the ruling class to exert enormous pressure on our ranks. -- Louis Proyect, [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 05/03/2002 Marxism list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: RE: Re: Re: Million demonstrators in France
Davies, Daniel wrote: >1) How does one use one's vote to "promote socialism" in a two-candidate >race between a conservative and a fascist? Didn't some people once say "After Hitler, us"? Doug
RE: Re: Re: Million demonstrators in France
On Thu, 02 May 2002 21:08:06 -0700, Sabri Oncu wrote: >Louis, > >>Why should French socialists not work on >>building the ranks of the left while sharpening >>its understanding of class principles and vote >>for Chirac at the same time to ensure that Le >>Pen is stopped this time? If they vote Chirac on >>May 5 does it mean that they support Chirac? Not >>that if they abstain they will make much >>difference but why take chances? >Socialists must promote socialism. To advocate a vote for a bourgeois >party makes a mockery of socialist principles. Two questions: 1) How does one use one's vote to "promote socialism" in a two-candidate race between a conservative and a fascist? 2) Given (1), how is the decision to vote Chirac incompatible with the promotion of socialism? It is not as if the French socialists are actually supporting Chirac, or making common cause; they continue to promote their own party as being a better choice for the parliamentary elections and as Chris Burford pointed out, "Vote for the crook, not the fascist" is hardly a ringing endorsement. It seems to me that the current French election is a reductio ad absurdum of the proposition that to advocate a vote for a bourgeois party is always and everywhere a mockery of socialist principles. dd ___ Email Disclaimer This communication is for the attention of the named recipient only and should not be passed on to any other person. Information relating to any company or security, is for information purposes only and should not be interpreted as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security. The information on which this communication is based has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable, but we do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness. All expressions of opinion are subject to change without notice. All e-mail messages, and associated attachments, are subject to interception and monitoring for lawful business purposes. ___
Re: Re: Million demonstrators in France
On Thu, 02 May 2002 21:08:06 -0700, Sabri Oncu wrote: >Louis, > >Why should French socialists not work on >building the ranks of the left while sharpening >its understanding of class principles and vote >for Chirac at the same time to ensure that Le >Pen is stopped this time? If they vote Chirac on >May 5 does it mean that they support Chirac? Not >that if they abstain they will make much >difference but why take chances? Socialists must promote socialism. To advocate a vote for a bourgeois party makes a mockery of socialist principles. There is always enormous pressure on the left to cross class lines. You'll notice that members of the ruling class never urge a vote for revolutionary politicians. They seem to understand their class interests better than some woozy leftists. >Now who is guilty? Social Democrats or >Communists or both or all the rest other than >the Nazis? Again, I am just talking about the >numbers. My last post on this question dealt with the treachery of the SP. But the CP was equally culpable. It refused to bloc with the SP, which it called "Social Fascist". They actually backed a Nazi initiative to unseat an SP elected official in Saxony--something they called a "Red Referendum". -- Louis Proyect, [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 05/03/2002 Marxism list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Re: Million demonstrators in France
On Thu, 02 May 2002 23:24:33 +0100, Chris Burford wrote: >While would-be marxists may have a low opinion >of bourgeois elections, it was something of a >problem that the German Nazi Party did come >first in the elections in 1933 and their leader >was chosen as chancellor. This is not really how Hitler came to power. Hitler's seizure of power was preceded by a series of rightward drifting governments, all of which paved the way for him. The SP found reasons to back each and every one of these governments in the name of the "lesser evil". (This is an argument we have heard from some leftists in the United States: "Clinton is not as bad as Bush"; "Johnson is not as bad as Goldwater, etc." The problem with this strategy is that allows the ruling class to limit the options available to the oppressed. The lesser evil is still evil.) The last "lesser evil" candidate the German Social Democracy urged support for was Paul Von Hindenburg, a top general in W.W.I.. The results were disastrous. Hindenburg took office on April 10 of 1932 and basically paved the way for Adolph Hitler. Hindenburg allowed the Nazi street thugs to rule the streets, but enforced the letter of the law against the working-class parties. Elections may have been taking place according to the Weimar constitution, but real politics was being shaped in the streets through the demonstrations and riots of Nazi storm-troopers. As these Nazi street actions grew more violent and massive, Hindenburg reacted on May 31 by making Franz Von Papen chancellor and instructed him to pick a cabinet "above the parties", a clear Bonapartist move. Such a cabinet wouldn't placate the Nazis. All they wanted to do was smash bourgeois democracy. As the civil war in the streets continued, Papen dissolved the Reichstag and called for new elections on July 31, 1932. On July 17, the Nazis held a march through Altona, a working class neighborhood, under police protection. The provocation resulted in fighting that left 19 dead and 285 wounded. The SP and CP were not able to mount a significant counteroffensive and the right-wing forces gathered self-confidence and support from "centrist" voters. When elections were finally held on July 31, the Nazi party received the most votes and took power. But the results had been decided long ago due to the spinelessness of the reformists. -- Louis Proyect, [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 05/02/2002 Marxism list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Million demonstrators in France
Whatever the political differences of analysis, it is disappointing that Louis Proyect can see no occasion to celebrate the massive May Day demonstrations in France. At 02/05/02 08:26 -0400, you wrote: > >The battle of principle however must also be won > >against those who distort marxism to argue that > >it would be "class teachery" to vote for Chirac > >in the present circumstances. > > > >IMHO of course. > > > >Chris Burford > >It makes no sense to vote for Chirac since his policies as Prime >Minister in the past were exactly those that created openings for the >far right in the first place. True by no means all of the demonstrators will vote for Chirac against Le Pen. We will not know until Sunday how many do. But the point is not the point that Louis suggests. The issue is not Chirac's policies: it is a choice between a candidate with openly fascist leanings and one without. The presidential election is now symbolic. If the left, and presumably most of the demonstrators on May Day were from the left, maintain this momentum, they will move on after the presidential election to mobilise for the election of socialist and other progressive deputies on policy grounds. > In any case, Chirac's return to power will only boost >the ranks of the far left and the far right in much the same way that >centrist, do-nothing governments did in Germany in the 1920s. I do not understand this muddled assertion at all. For the political battle the assembly elections are much more important. >Ultimately, there will be a battle between socialists and fascists >just as there was in the past. For success in such a battle, we need >to build the ranks of the left while sharpening its understanding of >class principles. The same sort of attempts to dull this >understanding that took place during the 1920s and 30s are obviously >at work today. There seems to be unanimity that the Socialist Party of France did not run an authoritative campaign that led the agenda. The problem with Louis's formulations is that they are stuck in a time warp which appears not to be able to learn from history. While would-be marxists may have a low opinion of bourgeois elections, it was something of a problem that the German Nazi Party did come first in the elections in 1933 and their leader was chosen as chancellor. I find Louis's comments here confused about how a repeat of the historic battle "between socialists and fascists" will avoid making the same mistakes as in Germany of splitting the vote between social democrats and revolutionary socialists. The question he seems to not answer is the need on occasions for a united front against fascism, which includes dubious capitalists. While I think Romaine Kroes has some interesting points about international finance and while I agree that imposing a neo-liberal agenda to keep Europe competitive, places hard burdens on working people, I cannot accept that it is desirable for working people in France to regard the difference between Chirac and Le Pen as the same as that between cholera and the plague. The consequences are frightening. By contrast the million demonstrators are an encouraging sign of a determination to resist Le Pen, while knowing that the alternatives are far from perfect. Chris Burford
Re: Re: Million demonstrators in France
I completely agree with Louis. Additionally, as the crisis deepens due to the maintaining policy of Maastrich's European integration, we are not ensured of not experiencing the come back of death penalty and xenophobia under Chirac as under Le Pen. Sunday, I shall not go and choose between plague and cholera. RK
