Surely it is high time to junk these models and come up with something more appropriate to our specific conditions. Leninism, Kautskyism, Maoism, etc., appeal to well-read radicals with specialized radical educations, but for most Americans, politics is essentially Republican or Democratic -- take one or the other of these alternatives or sit out the game. I think that this is not necessarily an indication that their "consciousnesses" are sufficiently "raised," but very possibly that they have a pretty realistic view of the possibilities of politics under the existing conditions in this country. For example, the U.S. labor movement did not develop an independent party, as in many European countries, because the U.S. political system does not favor developing such a party, but instead concentrated on having as much effect as possible on the two existing parties (more on the Democrats, since they proved to be more amenable to being pushed from the left).
Since Republicans are not likely to be very cooperative with us, that means that our activities have to be focused on influencing (or, in our wildest dreams, taking over) the Democrats. It is fine to talk about organizing independent mass organizations, and I’m all in favor of it. Certainly Democrats don't do anything useful unless they are pushed into it by mass organizations. But in twentieth-century history, those organizations which have accomplished anything -- the civil rights and peace movements of the 60s, the feminist movement, the environmental movement, etc., as well as the labor movement -- have done so by working on the Donkey Party. So I am still looking for an explanation of how ignoring the donkeys, love them or hate them, makes practical political sense for the Left.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org ________________________________ How good bad music and bad reasons sound when we march against an enemy. -- Nietzsche