abortion litmus test

Louis Proyect lnp3 at panix.com
Sat May 30 06:02:09 PDT 1998


Kathe Pollit:
> As for those religious groups that are "progressive" but anti-choice
>-- Sojourners, Catholic Worker, Seamless garment etc. I think it is
>fine to work in coaltion with them on capital punishment and other
>specific issues, but I would not get in too deep, I would not work where
>they set the agenda *(i.e. homosexuals welcome but only if in closet)

This subject of abortion was brought up in the context of Carrol Cox's misrepresentation of my views on the question of a revolutionary party. Let me correct his misrepresentation so that maximum clarity can be achieved.

A revolutionary party in the United States can and must make free and legal abortion part of its program. There can be no compromise on this question.

What I am opposed to is the formation of revolutionary parties that incorporate a particular understanding of history. This causes sectarianism. The SWP, for example, had a big split in the early 1980s over whether Lenin's theory of the "democratic dictatorship" was more correct than Trotsky's permanent revolution theory. The NY Times obituary on party leader Frank Lovell alluded to this split.

I am opposed to making such questions the basis for a split. Genuine principled questions include the right to a free and legal abortion, self-determination for oppressed nationalities like the American Indian, Chicanos and blacks, opposition to the two-party system. Why Carroll would muddle my views is simply beyond me.

Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list