On Wed, 9 Jan 2002 17:16:01 -0500 "Nathan Newman" <nathan at newman.org>
writes:
>
>
>
> I love how both the Right and the Left equate democratic procedures
> with
> capitalism, as if they are inseparable. It is a weird ideological
> collaboration to charge socialism with being inherently unobtainable
> without
> undemocratic means. Engels was always clear when he was plumping
> for the
> German Social Democrats that only minor reforms could be
> accomplished until
> the Social Democrats convinced a large enough majority to give them
> full
> power.
But one difference between Engels and yourself, Nathan, is that Engels was a revolutionary. While by no means averse to using electoral politics, he well understood its limitations, and he held that the working class must prepare to seize power. If this meant running candidates for office and winning elections, fine, but Engels understood that the bourgeoisie was not likely to cede power, regardless of the outcomes of elections, and so they had to be prepared to use extraparliamentary means as well. You may wish to relect upon the Chilean experience under Allendee, since that exposes the limitations of electoral cretinism. Just because the Chilean left had managed to win an election, it did not follow that the bourgeoisie was willing to give up its control over the state and of course over the means of production either.
>The same is true for progressive Democrats. The problem is
> not with
> the Constitution (except maybe the US Senate filibuster rules) or
> with the
> Democrats per se, but that we have not convinced a majority of the
> US
> population to support our issues electorally.
I wouldn't underestimate the role of the US Constitution in blocking radical reform in the US if I were you. If you bother to read the Federalist Papers, the Framers did not mince words over their intention to limit the influence of the populace over the state - see Federalist Paper No. 10 for instance. The creation of a Senate was done delibertely to limit the influence of the lower orders on government. Even with the the popular elelction of senators (introduced back in the Progressive Era), the Senate is not based on the principle of "one man - one vote." It is inherently undemocratic, and this is reinforced by the Senate rules which mean that you ususally have to have at least 60 votes to pass legislation.
>On a lot of them, we
> are
> actually not too far off, but my point is that having 45% of the
> population
> on your side gets you pretty much zilch-- you need the last 5% (plus
> some
> given Senate rules) to win.
>
> -- Nathan Newman
>
________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.