---- Original Message ----- From: "Charles Brown" <CharlesB at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>
>I'm definately not a leftist for the foreign policy orientation of the CP
>or
>the success of the anti-Vietname movement;
^^^^^^^^ -CB: So are you saying you disagree with the positions of the Old and New Left on substantive issues , or agreeing with some positions , but saying that those lefts failed to succeed in winning -the U.S.over to their positions ?
I agreed with many core positions-- anti-fascism, pro-colonial independence, anti-corporate intervention in third world countries. But I think the ideological subservience to foreign powers with their own nasty agendas (Soviet Union, China, etc.) led to poor strategy that undermined those goals and many domestic goals. The rigid no-strike policy of the CP during World War II is a good example and their general indifference to the brutality of Stalinism and latter invasions in Hungary and Czeckoslovakia undermined a lot of left credibility on foreign policy issues.
And yes, I think the failures of strategy on foreign policy was bad because many of the goals were righteous.
>I'm a leftist for the desires and
>success of the left around the union, civil rights, civil liberties,
>feminist and other domestic movements. The Left has chronically splintered
>over connecting its domestic policy to foreign policy mobilizations.
^^^^^^^
-CB: Are you saying that the Old Left, especially the Communist Party, had significant successes in some domestic issues ?
Absolutely. The Popular Front of the 30s led to a string of successes and the CP's role was ofte admirable and decisive. Other left groups have made real contributions in other domestic struggles. I wouldn't have spent years of my life being a leftist otherwise.
And I only spend my time criticizing strategy because I want a successful one.
-- Nathan Newman