> Although several of the ABBs on this list have always emphasized how
> crucial the Soviet Union was to the social advances in the u.s., I don't
> think they (you) recognize how important a fact the _absence_ of the SU
> is in reference to DP policies. An old slogan is highly appropriate: The
> Enemy is United -- What about us? I think the ABB line (Lacny being an
> extreme case but perhaps emblematic) is a real barrier to building a new
> left.
-------------------------
Actually, I very much agree with you about the historic importance of the
defeat of the USSR -- as important for the opposite reason as the Bolshevik
Revolution was 70 years earlier. It was one of the factors which pushed the
entire Western political spectrum to the right in the last quarter of the
20th century, the other being the decline of the Western labour movement and
the corrsponding rightward shift of the parties which the unions
traditionally supported -- the DP in the US, the social democrats and
Communist parties in Europe and elsewhere. Is your point that, with the
disappeance of the USSR, the DP leadership no longer saw social reform as
necessary to prevent the spread of Communism? If so, I agree in part.
But I think the other factor -- the decline in the size and combativity of the US labour movement -- was perhaps the more important one. The rise of the industrial unions drove the creation of the Keynesian welfare state, so it was natural that, as union density declined, the unions would experience a decline in their political influence. The emergence of new industries, new layers of the working class, new forms of work organization, new markets, and new technologies encouraged the decline of trade unionism and welfare statism, but that is another matter. These thoughts also have some relevance, I think, to the parallel discussion on this thread between Nathan N. and Doug H.
However, I'm not sure what significance the evolution of the DP leadership has, since IMO it doesn't seem to affect the question of whether it is still necessary to distinguish between the Democrats and Republicans -- at least with respect to the constituencies each represents and the policies, at least in the domestic arena, which flow from that.
That leads to the other point you raise -- about the "ABB line" being a barrier to builiding a new left. I'm also not sure how much the acrimony we've seen on both sides between the Kerry and Nader factions does constitute such a barrier, except for a very small minority of people who are psychologically incapable of social cooperation. Most people find ways to work around their differences when there is a need for it. Personally, if the opportunity presented itself, I don't see I'd have any difficulty at all working with you and other Nader supporters concerning Iraq, Israel/Palestine, cutbacks in social spending, and a whole host of other issues despite our disagreement over the election, and I think that's true of most on these lists. It's one more reason we should discourage, rather than encourage, flaming and efforts to be "clever" which only succeed in erecting artificial barriers.
If a deeper process of mass social change were somehow to occur, I suspect the left would find itself quickly drawn to where it was taking place. But no one can say for certain at this point whether it would start to unfold inside the DP (or NDP in Canada), as I would expect, or outside of the traditional institutions, as you happen to believe. So it's probably also worth reminding ourselves there's no excuse for anyone to get too exercised about historic opportunities being squandered by not being in the right place at the present time.
Marv Gandall