Nathan wrote:
"...I'm not making a big case for the revolutionary gains from voting Democratic. All I'm arguing is there is no revolutionary gain from voting alternatives and there are non-revolutionary losses in the marginal reforms progressive Dems are able to pass on occasion..."
-The point you consistently miss is that "revolutionary gains," if the -phrase has any meaning, has a *historical* meaning. The historical -prerequisite for a proletarian revolutionary movement anywhere -is the emergence of an independent -workingclass political movement.
Yep, no argument - what does that has to do with the ballot box? As Charles notes, no revolutionary movement of any kind built itself up primarily around leadership primarily aimed at electoral action.
(((((((((
CB: Although Nathan makes a pretty accurate point, I actually was not saying that ( And I actually am guilty of a little American exceptionalism in that I think we are obligated to make every effort for non-violent and electoral revolution here, realizing that we be forced by counterrevolution to fight in other ways as well; anyway we have an obligation to try to use the longstanding American voting tradition honestly). I was being sort of indirect and trying to point out that the unless one considers Russia or Cuba or elsewhere as revolutions, there haven't been any revolutions by independent organizations, and so the argument that an independent organization is necessary for revolution is theoretical without empirical confirmation , which doesn't mean it is not true; but I am asking what is the supporting evidence of those who assert it so positively
As Nathan says:
I prefer Marx's much more flexible political opinions on adjusting electoral tactics to the realities of particular countries.