>Jeffrey Fisher wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, January 13, 2003, at 02:08 AM, Chris Burford wrote:
> >
> > > While I am critical of leftists who refuse as a matter of principle to
> > > see that the Democrats may at times be more progressive than the
> > > Republicans, in order to break out of tailing behind one party, it is
>
>This language of "more or less progressive," more or less to the left,
>is not relevant to consideration of the two parties. The _general trend_
>of both is further and further in a conservative direction, and _one_ of
>the sources of that trend are those leftists who, like Chris, insist on
>supporting the Democrats, which frees that Party to more and more
>express its true inner spirit, which is the spirit of international
>capital and imperialism. And it isn't a question of measuring one party
>against the other. The point is that no major _reform_ movement in the
>U.S. can grow except _outside_ the Democratic Party.
I thought Carrol had vowed never to read my posts. Perhaps he just meant he would never read them seriously.
I cannot see how my words above are properly construed to mean that I "insist on supporting the Democrats".
And this in the context of a post welcoming a dramatic progressive move by an outgoing Republican Governor.
And when Carrol also notes that I actually argue against tailing behind the Democrats.
In fact I rather agree that most valuable politics are to be done outside the two main bourgeois parties, but at the time of a significant election, I am one of those who think it wrong not to decide the election of which party will be more progressive for the overall movement.
I do think a mass movement outside the two main parties would be good. I do not know how you do it, except by fostering links between progressive trends that are emerging already.
Carrol asserts there is no wider trend, but does not present arguments against my suggestion that capital punishment could be abolished in the USA within 15 years. Perhaps he does not think that would be progressive.
The contemptuous style of the post seems to think you can define political positions by which figures you are most robustly contemptuous of. I do not think that is an objective way to analyse the progessive possibilities in the present situation.
Chris Burford London